Íæż½ã½ã

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...

1)Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established: Transmission of pornographic images: Regardless of the Applicant’s intent, the Tribunal found that it is established by clear and convincing evidence that he transmitted pornographic images (images of male genitalia) to and from his UN Women email account. Incidents involving Mr. SL: Considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal found Mr. SL’s accounts credible which were corroborated by other evidence. It was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant inappropriately touched Mr. SL and...

By not seeking the Medical Director’s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant’s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...

UNDT held that that there was sufficient evidence in the investigation report that the Applicant harassed staff members and created a hostile work environment. UNDT held that there was no clear and convincing evidence, against the Applicant, that the recruitment of two local consultants was an act of misconduct on his part, as it was a managerial process in which he was not regularly involved. UNDT thus held that there was no basis for the inclusion of irregular recruitment in the charges against him. UNDT held that there was not clear and convincing evidence of sexual harassmet of C1 by the...

The Applicant seems to also challenge the Administration’s response to his request for management evaluation, which is not a reviewable administrative decision, and therefore the Tribunal will only review the contested decision itself. The governing legal framework in this case is ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). ST/SGB/2008/5 is not applicable in this case as he did not allege that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority by Ms. A. Rather, the Applicant’s claim is that Ms. A filed a false and malicious complaint...

While DD refused to give testimony to the Tribunal, and not being a United Nations staff member is not obliged to do so, this does not by itself render his interview statement inadmissible or otherwise invalid.; The Tribunal notes that the crux of the present case is whether the comments and proposals of the Applicant were of inappropriate sexual nature, or if instead, they simply concerned the security and safety of the premises or otherwise were nothing but jokes and lighthearted remarks.; As the Tribunal rejected all the Applicant’s submissions regarding the facts not having been...

Regarding the Respondent’s claim that the Applicant cannot challenge the managerial action imposed on him for failing to request a management evaluation, the Tribunal found that the challenged managerial action is a non-disciplinary measure imposed following the completion of a disciplinary process and therefore the Applicant can challenge it, along with disciplinary measures, without requesting a management evaluation under staff rule 11.2(b). Regarding the question of whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established, the Tribunal found that the facts that the...

The Tribunal found that that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the misconduct complained of, and that the established facts qualified as misconduct under the Staff Regulations and Rules, further that the sanction was proportionate to the offence and was therefore lawful. The Tribunal also found that there were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant. The degree of sensitivity of the alleged misconduct did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting...

It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to evaluate the correctness of the contested decision but rather examine whether the Administration respected the bounds of its discretionary power in reaching it. While the Applicant alleged that evidence was ignored and that OIOS investigators were biased against him, he provided no detail in support of these assertions. Tribunal was satisfied that OIOS interviewed all relevant witnesses with respect to the incidents of alleged sexual misconduct and reviewed the available documentation. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the conclusion that the...