É«¿âTV

The UNAT held that although the former staff member did not receive the full investigation report until after the disciplinary process was concluded, there was no due process violation because the opportunity to respond letter was detailed, and he received the full investigation report early in the Dispute Tribunal proceedings.

The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal had appropriately heard live testimony from numerous witnesses, all of whom were subject to cross-examination, and had admitted certain hearsay statements using established methods of corroboration. The UNAT held that the Dispute...

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 noted that the UNDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The UNAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The UNAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The UNAT agreed with the...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

UNAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the UNDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. UNAT noted that there is no...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. UNAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...

UNAT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. UNAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

UNAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. UNAT found that UNRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. UNAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. UNAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. UNAT held that the Secretary-General...