Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was biased, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred factually by concluding that the Appellant did not cooperate with the Organisation¡¯s investigation and that he withdrew his earlier admission of misconduct on the basis that there was evidence supporting these conclusions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant had been formally warned twice for similar conduct was a relevant consideration for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider in assessing the proportionality of the Organisation¡¯s sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service with payment in lieu of notice but without termination indemnity for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the facts established that his actions, which included public drunkenness, becoming embroiled in a bar fight, and being detained for drunkenness, were unbecoming of an international civil servant, in violation of Staff Regulation 1. 2(f) and thereby amounted to misconduct; and that the Applicant also violated Staff Regulation 1. 2(q) through his failure to operate his vehicle with reasonable care, and Staff Rule 1. 2(a) through his failure to follow the instructions issued on behalf of the Secretary-General as communicated to him by his supervisors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the disciplinary consequences were a proportionate response to the seriousness of the misconduct and concluded that there were no procedural or substantive irregularities that would vitiate the outcome. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
In assessing the proportionality of a sanction imposed upon a staff member, evidence regarding the record of service of the staff member is a relevant consideration for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.