²Ù±ÆÊÓƵapp

UNAT held, agreeing with UNDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel’s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. UNAT held that the reprimand in the offender’s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe’s reputation and career. UNAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only remotely affected Mr. Awe. UNAT noted that there was no legal provision for an award for procedural error. UNAT was satisfied that sufficient evidence was provided to justify the award of compensation for harm to reputation and professional standing; however, noting that UNDT did not take into account that the harm was of a temporary nature, UNAT reduced the award of compensation. UNAT highlighted the importance of compliance with the respective rules, regulations, and/or bulletins, in particular with regard to the referral of the matter to the competent official for disciplinary action and respect of deadlines. UNAT granted the appeal in part, vacating the UNDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for procedural error and modifying the award of compensation for harm by reducing it to USD 5,000. UNAT affirmed UNDT’s order to remove the offending references in the minutes and to write to all recipients to inform them of the fact-finding panel’s findings.