2013-Ģ��ƵAT-337

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. Ģ��ƵAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. Ģ��ƵAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal��s due process were met. Ģ��ƵAT held that, since the requirements of due process were not disregarded, given that Mr Leal was informed of the charges against him and he had the opportunity to contest them, the interests of justice were served. Ģ��ƵAT reaffirmed its disapproval of the awarding of compensation in the absence of actual prejudice. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵDT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service with payment in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity for misconduct in the form of allowing an individual to work without a contract, ordering workers to be locked inside a warehouse without an exit or a bathroom and receiving, storing and distributing pornography on his Ģ��ƵDP computer and through his Ģ��ƵDP email account. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Applicant��s due process rights were violated and, while the misconduct was established, Ģ��ƵDT found that the sanction was disproportionate and ordered it to be changed to separation with termination indemnity.

Legal Principle(s)

Due deference must be shown to the Secretary-General��s administrative decisions. There are no legal grounds that can justify the awarding of compensation in the absence of actual prejudice.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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.

Applicants/Appellants

Leal

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement