Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the investigation by her.
In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s seniority, the circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct, and the risk of a perception of impunity for senior officials were determining factors in a decision to place a staff member on administrative leave with pay.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member failed to show any illegality had occurred which would warrant a remedy in the form of compensation for reputational loss, moral damage, stress and anxiety. In any event, administrative leave with pay is non-punitive and a non-disciplinary measure.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSMIL) contested the decision of the Administration to place her on administrative leave with pay (ALWP) during the pendency of an investigation into allegations of abuse of authority and harassment against her.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2024/048, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application, concluding that the decision to place her on administrative leave with pay was reasonable, particularly given the staff member¡¯s role in the administration of the fact-finding panel.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s role on appeal is to consider whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightly concluded that the contested decision was reasonable, proportionate, and procedurally correct in light of the applicable legal framework.
It is only necessary to hear witnesses where the relevant facts are unclear or the dispute of facts is irreconcilable, warranting a fuller examination for the purpose of assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses in order to reach sustainable findings on the probabilities.
Allegations of misconduct and the start of an investigation are clear circumstances which may warrant the placement of a staff member on administrative leave with pay.
Only substantial procedural irregularities can render an administrative decision unlawful.