Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Mr. Conteh contested the decision to separate him from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, for misconduct. In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/189, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that Mr. Conteh committed four acts of sexual harassment, but that Mr. Conteh had been sanctioned for a behaviour that was essentially episodic, was not threatening the victims or persistently annoying them, without specific consequences. Mr. Conteh immediately gave up the harassment when he understood that his ¡°rude advances¡± were disturbing the complainants. Having considered that the alleged facts did not interfere with the work or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment; the conditions themselves of the harassment (perpetrated in non-working occasions and in private locations, in an atmosphere of conviviality), without any ill intent by Mr. Conteh; and the fact that the Mr. Conteh¡¯s professional interactions with the complainants were rare, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the established facts had no (or at least a very limited) impact on the work environment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that it had not been established that Mr. Conteh may have negatively impacted the image and reputation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR. In the sanction letter, the Administration identified aggravating and mitigating circumstances. As aggravating factors, the Administration considered Mr. Conteh¡¯s supervisory responsibility over the harassed women and the alleged negative impact of misconduct on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s image and reputation. As mitigating factors, the Administration considered that Mr. Conteh had expressed remorse and that he had a long and satisfactory service record as a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member, including service in numerous hardship duty stations. In addition to the mitigating circumstances identified by the Administration, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the fact that Mr. Conteh expressed his intention to contact the complainants to apologize for his behaviour, should also be pondered as mitigating circumstances. Noting that the fact that Mr. Conteh was inebriated when two of the incidents occurred was not a mitigating factor per se, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found it was relevant as it made unlikely that such kind of incidents might occur again, particularly during working hours. Noting that Mr. Conteh was a long-serving Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member with a positive performance record and no previous disciplinary problems, that ¡°ordinarily, separation from service or dismissal is not an appropriate sanction for a first offence¡±2 and having considered previous practice of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General in disciplinary cases, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr. Conteh was unfair and disproportionate to the established misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore ordered that the imposed disciplinary measure be rescinded and replaced with the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for a period of twelve months effective the date of Mr. Conteh¡¯s separation from service; and that Mr. Conteh be subsequently placed on special leave with full pay and receive retroactive payment of his salary and related benefits. As an alternative to the rescission, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT set a sum equivalent to two years¡¯ net base salary.