�ٱ���Ƶapp

The staff member’s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the UNDT conclusion that the staff member’s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct.  The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56):  “… By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant’s personal dignity but also adversely affected the interests of the United Nations. His conduct violated the core values of the Organization and the measure of summary dismissal from service was not a disproportionate sanction, given that remaining in service would be irreconcilable with the core values professed by the United Nations and the gravity of the conduct. … Consequently, given the seriousness and degree of the Appellant’s misconduct, the sanction of summary dismissal from service was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate. The Appeals Tribunal finds that it was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary-General’s discretion to determine that engaging in acts of sexual harassment of a junior colleague is in violation of the standards that have been consistently reiterated by the Organization since at least 1992. This rendered the Appellant unfit for further service with the Organization, and therefore, this Tribunal is satisfied that summary dismissal from service was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense.  … Arguably, the Appellant violated the relationship of trust that existed between him and the Organization. His conduct was particularly egregious in light of the position he occupied, that of Chief of Field Office in Kadugli, Sudan, at the P-4 level while the Complainant was a United Nations Volunteer. As such, the Appeals Tribunal finds that, in these circumstances, imposing the disciplinary sanction at the strictest end of the spectrum was not disproportionate and manifestly abusive but a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters – a discretion with which this Tribunal will not lightly interfere. Accordingly, the UNDT also did not err in finding the sanction proportionate to the offense.” Regarding the claim about the placement of the staff member’s information on the Screen Database, the Tribunal noted that that was a final administrative decision in and of itself, and as such, it should have first been submitted for management evaluation. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the UNDT Judgment affirmed.