51�Թ�

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization’s “zero-tolerance” policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not “clear and convincing evidence” but “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.

In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ‘sexual molestation’, constitute ‘serious misconduct’ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.

Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...

The UNAT first considered the staff member’s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The UNAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the UNAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the UNDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the UNAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The UNAT held that the UNDT judgment was problematic because the UNDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The UNAT observed that the UNDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the UNDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The UNAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant’s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

UNAT held that the UNDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. UNAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-UN staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the UNDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. UNAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified UN staff members, to whom the...

UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT’s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT upheld both UNDT’s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as UNDT’s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. UNAT, however, vacated UNDT’s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. UNAT held that “generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...