�鶹��ý

The UNAT held that there was no merit to the staff member’s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General’s response to a UNAT order requesting information. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT’s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation “which he heard from another person who attended court” and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 “does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member”. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Tribunal found that the use of the investigation report was not subject to the confidentiality agreement between the parties; it was an autonomous document, which was lawfully used in court. The decision did not constitute a disciplinary measure. It was taken pending the completion of the disciplinary process and was without prejudice to the Applicant’s rights. More than one circumstance warranting the placement of the staff member on ALWP occurred. The Applicant could be dismissed or separated from service with the United Nations for breach of the duty of trust and confidence, in...

There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, UNOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

The administrative decision to close a staff member’s complaint with no disciplinary action produces direct legal consequences affecting his/her terms and conditions of appointment. Moreover, when the claim concerns issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. Accordingly, the application is receivable in its entirety.
The Panel did not comply with its duty to take the necessary steps to obtain the testimony of one...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.’s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s argument that UNDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General’s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. UNAT observed that when UNDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel’s report, it did not draw any...

UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. UNAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before UNAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. UNAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall’s conduct into question. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. UNAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by UNDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. UNAT held that UNDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

The Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Cabrera’s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell’s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. UNAT held that UNDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...