É«¿âTV

The Tribunal concluded that there were procedural violations that rendered the investigation and the contested decision unlawful. The Tribunal ordered rescission of the decision or compensation of six months’ net base salary in lieu of rescission. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal concluded that the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and the subsequent disciplinary process were in breach of the procedures required by ST/SGB/2008/5 and the IGO Guidelines for Conducting Investigations and that these procedural errors were sufficiently grave to render the...

The established facts considered in their entirety amount to misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can manifest itself in different forms, its determination is fact specific, and its occurrence is not limited to work places during work hours. The Applicant’s conduct amounts to sexual harassment in violation of staff rule 1.2(f). A plain reading of the Applicant’s Facebook messages shows their sexual nature. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant was put on notice that his sexual advances were unwelcome by Ms. X’s text message in July 2012 requesting that he...

The Tribunal found that there was clear and convincing evidence that on the morning of 9 February 2015, at his office, the Applicant commited misconduct. The established facts legally amounted to misconduct, in violation of the norms consistently upheld by the Organization since at minimum 1992, where sexual harassment was described as unacceptable behaviour for the staff of the United Nations, and reiterated through, among other, outlawing, in 2003, sexual exploitation and abuse as serious misconduct warranting a summary dismissal, and through a detailed anti-harassment and abuse of authority...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate’s qualifications were clearly superior vis-à-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. UNDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. UNDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. UNDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

UNDT was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Applicant was prepared to use his power and influence to make life in the United Nations difficult for the Complainant if she pursued her complaint against him. UNDT held that this evidence satisfied the clear and convincing requirement. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation, the Applicant was afforded the due process rights he was entitled to. UNDT held that the disciplinary action of summary dismissal in this matter was justified and proportionate. UNDT dismissed the application.

The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization’s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization’s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant’s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health...

The Applicant’s attempt to hug V01 did not on its own qualify as an unwelcome sexual advance or request for sexual favour or verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a sexual nature or any other behaviour of a sexual nature. The Applicant’s asking for V01’s room number on multiple occasions did not constitute sexual harassment. The facts did not establish sexual harassment as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 and as interpreted in various jurisprudence. The Respondent’s investigations were skewed toward finding a case for sexual harassment regardless of the inadequacy of evidence to substantiate the...

Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The evidence on record, including the investigation report, the coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the Applicant’s contradictory statements, and the inherent probabilities of the situation in the working and living conditions, cumulatively constitute a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, the acts of sexual harassment. Do the established facts legally amount to misconduct? The Tribunal finds...