2025-UNAT-1512, Reynaud Joseph-Marie Theunens
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the contested decision was lawful. It held that the UNDT appropriately analysed the evidence presented, providing detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting each witness’s testimony and, importantly, considered the staff member’s admission of many of the key facts. These included acknowledging that: tensions existed between himself and both staff and national staff members; he was probably too demanding as a manager; he raised his voice at work; he referred to the sects of certain national staff members; he had difficult interpersonal issues with Complainant 1; he downgraded Complainant 1’s performance evaluation ratings, which were all later raised by rebuttal panels; and he reduced direct communication with national staff and used their First Report Officers as a filter. The UNAT found no fault with the UNDT’s rejection of the staff member’s explanation of the incidents, which was deemed self-interested and lacking credibility.
The UNAT also held that the UNDT correctly found that the evidence demonstrated that Mr. Theunens’ actions were largely unrelated to performance or work of staff members; that the work deficiencies he alleged other staff members displayed were not supported by the performance ratings; that he failed to acknowledge others’ good qualities and positive performance; and that his conduct exceeded normal disagreements or management actions.
The UNAT concluded that the sanction was proportionate to the misconduct and allowed the staff member the opportunity to apply for promotion in the future. It further held that a non-disciplinary action would not have achieved the required result.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/145.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) contested the decision of the Administration to impose on him the disciplinary measure of demotion of one grade with a three-year deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion for harassment and abuse of authority.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2023/145, the UNDT concluded that it had been established by a preponderance of the evidence that the staff member had committed harassment and abuse of authority and dismissed his application.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
In cases where an oral hearing is held, the UNDT is required to provide a full, systematic analysis of the evidence, setting explicit reasons for accepting or rejecting the testimony of each witness. It must make explicit findings pertaining to the credibility and reliability of the evidence and provide a clear indication of which disputed version it prefers, along with an explanation. This involves a consideration of issues including: i) the witness’ candour and demeanour; ii) the witness’ latent and blatant biases; iii) internal and external inconsistencies in the evidence; iv) the probability or improbability of particular aspects of the witness’ version; v) the calibre and cogency of the witness’ testimony when compared to that of other witnesses testifying in relation to the same incident; vi) the opportunities the witness had to experience or observe the events in question; and vii) the quality, integrity and independence of the witness’ recall of the events.
The UNAT’s role is corrective in nature and not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue their case. Consequently, provided that the UNDT has undertaken its task in the manner required of it, the UNAT will afford a degree of deference to its factual findings, particularly where oral evidence is heard.
Regarding the proportionality of the sanction, the UNDT is not required to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Administration among the courses of action open to it, nor to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Rather, any disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the misconduct, lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. It is not to be more excessive than necessary to achieve the required result.