2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1006

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

nglĢ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in finding that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established. Ģ��ƵAT agreed with Ģ��ƵRWA DT that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the Appellant hit a student forcefully on the back during the 25 October 2016 distribution of school bags. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in relying on the testimony of the Donor Relations Officer (DRO), which is of high value. Ģ��ƵAT noted that he was a neutral witness without any personal interest in the matter and he did not know the Appellant before. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err in accepting the statements of the pupils as corroborating evidence. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant could not, for the first time on appeal, allege that the four witnesses were first-graders and therefore incompetent witnesses. Ģ��ƵAT disagreed with the Appellant that the evidence was implausible given his unblemished professional record and the fact that no complaint had been filed. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err when it held that the sanction imposed was proportionate to the offense. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to impose upon him a disciplinary measure of a letter of censure and a fine equivalent to one month��s base salary for using corporal punishment on a student. Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application and upheld the disciplinary measure.

Legal Principle(s)

In disciplinary cases, the Tribunals will examine the following: (i) whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure is based have been established (where termination is the sanction imposed, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence; in all other cases preponderance of the evidence is sufficient); (ii) whether the established facts amount to misconduct; (iii) whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence; and (iv) whether the staff member��s due process rights were respected. Children may be relied upon as witnesses. There is a broad discretion of the Administration with regards to the imposition of disciplinary measures.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Suleiman

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement