91鶹

UNDT/2022/127, Nimusiima

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicant’s dismissal.   There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the Applicant, only her claim for recission of the dismissal decision and clearing of her record are applicable within the Organization’s Internal Justice System. Accordingly, the Applicant will be granted the relief of recission of the decision or compensation in lieu thereof pursuant to arts. 10.5(a) and (b) of the UNDT Statute. The decision to impose the sanction of dismissal from service on the Applicant was rescinded. The Tribunal held that the evident unfairness of the termination in this case jusitified payment of the maximum compensation in lieu equivalent of two years' net base salary. The Respondent was ordered to remove the sanction letter and all references to it from the Applicant's Official Status File.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant was contesting the disciplinary measure on her of dismissal from service pursuant to staff rule 10.2(a)(ix).

Legal Principle(s)

The role of the Tribunal in judicial review of disciplinary decisions is “to ascertain whether the facts on which the sanction is based have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence”.The Administration bears the burden of establishing that the misconduct has occurred, and in cases where termination of employment is a possible outcome the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.    The clear and convincing standard of proof is codified by section 8.1(a) of UNHCR/AI/2018/18 (Misconduct and the Disciplinary Process).

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

 

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.