Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Preliminary matter: the use of prior conduct evidence The Applicant argues that his due process rights were violated during the investigation, particularly by the irregular use of prior conduct evidence which allegedly created a bias against him and masked the lack of clear and convincing evidence in relation to the sexual harassment complaint. The Tribunal considers it is proper and not unlawful for the Organization to consider the staff member¡¯s background and behaviour towards others in the context of a disciplinary case, as long as it is relevant, uncontroversial and probative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

The essential question for determination on appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the alleged misconduct of creating a hostile work environment and giving of gifts was proved in accordance with the standard of clear and convincing evidence. In other words, did the evidence establish the alleged misconduct to a high degree of probability? At its essence, therefore, this case involves strongly contested disputes of fact about whether AAC conducted himself in a manner that was abusive and created a hostile working environment. The Administration says he did. AAC strongly denies it. Thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, to whom the...

The staff member¡¯s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the staff member¡¯s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): ¡°¡­ By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant¡¯s personal dignity but also adversely...

The rationale for imposing such an extraordinary administrative measure in matters of ALWOP concerning sexual misconduct is twofold, firstly to act as a deterrent for staff members from engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse and secondly, to protect the interests of the Organization by upholding its integrity and reputation. Any decision to extend ALWOP must be reasonable and proportionate. A decision to extend ALWOP is a drastic administrative measure and normally should be of short duration. In determining whether an extension of ALWOP is lawful, the Tribunal shall be guided by factors...

The case was decided by a bench of three judges. The Majority decided to dismiss the application with one Judge dissenting. On whether the facts of the case were established, the Majority concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested decision. Regarding misconduct, the Majority concurred that the act of forcing sexual intercourse, by the Applicant on the Complainant-(i.e., rape), amounted to sexual abuse in a grave form and, as such, constituted a serious misconduct prescribed by staff regulation 10.1(b) and staff rule 1.2...

The Tribunal found that the Administration properly qualified the Applicant¡¯s conduct towards the Complainants as sexual harassment, but found the sanction disproportionate to the offence. The Tribunal is of the view that, while in the assessment of accusations of harassment the test focuses on the conduct itself - and requires an objective examination as to whether it could be expected or perceived to cause offence or humiliation to a reasonable person, being not necessary instead to establish that the alleged offender was ill-intended (see Belkahbbaz Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-2018-873, para. 76) -, the lack of...

The Tribunal concludes from the evidence that the Applicant commented adversely on V01¡¯s clothing during his visit to the National Committee. However, while acknowledging that the comments may have been out of line given that he had no supervisory role over the staff in the National Committee, the Tribunal does not find that evidence supports that this conduct had a sexual component. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant compared V01¡¯s age to his son while stating that he tried to avoid speaking to older women. The Tribunal is also satisfied...

The Tribunal held that staff members¡¯ obligations under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b) and (f) are not limited to the work environment but also apply in a certain way to their private lives. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted physical conduct of a sexual nature that might reasonably be excepted or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to the complainant. There was no doubt that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. The Tribunal found no grounds to review the level of the sanction imposed on the Applicant.