²Ù±ÆÊÓƵapp

The UNAT upheld the UNDT’s conclusions that (1) four of the six incidents underlying the hostile work environment charge against the appellant were not established, but that two incidents were; and (2) appellant had unlawfully interfered with a recruitment exercise which also created a hostile work environment. The UNAT rejected appellant’s contention that because the UNDT considered that certain actions were not harassment, that they could not constitute misconduct.  Whereas certain comments by the appellant about the gender composition of the senior management team, or a failure by appellant to consult in the placement of staff on a subordinate manager’s team, were not harassment, they nonetheless could contribute to a hostile work environment. The UNAT also disagreed with appellant’s contention that because the UNDT rejected certain of the Administration’s findings on harassment, that accordingly, the disciplinary measure should have been adjusted. The UNAT held that even though appellant’s actions did not constitute harassment, and out of the seven charged incidents, only three were established, the nature and gravity of abuse of authority alone was enough to warrant the imposed sanction. The UNAT also found that imposing the sanction of written censure and loss of two steps in grade was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s discretion, with which it would not interfere. The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that it was a procedural flaw for a manager who knew the complainant in the case to be the officer who established the fact-finding panel, but this irregularity did not render the disciplinary process or measure unlawful. The UNAT was satisfied that appellant’s due process rights were met, in that she was fully informed of the charges against her and was given the opportunity to contest them and to seek advice of counsel. Because the UNAT did not find any illegality in the decision of the UNDT, the UNAT rejected appellant’s request for moral damages.