UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT first clarified that the appeal was not directed against the second sanction, given the former staff member’s failure to appeal that sanction in a timely manner, but rather concerned ensuring that his personal records with the United Nations were accurate.In this regard, the UNAT found that the Administration’s reliance on the previous disciplinary findings and first sanctions in determining the second sanction was erroneous. It held that when the Administration considered and decided the second sanction, the former staff member’s pending UNAT appeal regarding the first sanctions was known, or must be deemed to have been known, to the Administration to potentially putting in jeopardy the justification for, and possible recission of, the first sanctions.The Administration nonetheless took into account those at-risk factors and applied its first disciplinary findings and sanctions to its determination of the second sanction.
Accordingly, the UNAT concluded that the former staff member’s United Nations personnel records should reflect that he had, in effect, an unblemished record at all times until the second sanction was imposed.
The UNAT granted the appeal, reversed Judgment No. UNDT/2025/043, rescinded the administrative decision not to re-issue the letter of sanction to the former staff member dated 13 February 2023, and directed the Secretary-General to issue a new sanction letter which, together with his United Nations personnel records, shall contain no reference to the first sanctions imposed on him, his previous disciplinary record, or the overturned Judgment No. UNDT/2022/115.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Office of Counter Terrorism in Vienna initially contested the disciplinary measures of loss of three steps in grade, deferment for three years of eligibility for consideration for promotion, and a requirement to attend on-site or online interactive training on workplace civility and communication imposed on him for creating a hostile, offensive and humiliating work environment between 2015 and 2018 (first sanctions).The first sanctions were reversed by the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1401 – which overturned UNDT Judgment UNDT/2022/115 – but the Administration nevertheless relied on them to support a subsequent sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity imposed on him for misconduct (second sanction).The former staff member contested before the UNDT the Administration’s refusal to reconsider and modify the second sanction imposed on him following the issuance of Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1401.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2025/043, the UNDT dismissed the former staff member’s application.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Under Article 2(1)(e) of the UNAT Statute, the UNAT examines the impugned Judgment for errors of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. As such, not every error of fact would render the impugned Judgment defective. Rather, an error of fact must be of such significance that it must have led the first instance Tribunal to reach a manifestly unreasonable decision. Manifest unreasonableness could be found to occur when a finding of fact is entirely unsupported by the evidence, is speculative, or when it is established on excessive inferences. It is the appellant’s burden to show that such error exists.