Determination of misconduct and assessment of proportionality

Determination of misconduct

Diagram describing the flow of how to determine the misconduct and the assessment of proportionality
  • Unsatisfactory conduct is any conduct where a staff member fails to comply with the staff member’s obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations or other relevant administrative issuances and/or to observe the standards of conduct expected of an international civil servant.
  • Unsatisfactory conduct that is of sufficient gravity may rise to the level of misconduct.
  • Does the unsatisfactory conduct rise to the level of misconduct?
    • If not, it may result to administrative measures and/or managerial action.
    • If yes, is it serious misconduct?
      • defined as “serious misconduct” e.g., sexual exploitation and abuse
      • determined to break the trust of the Organization rendering the continuation of employment untenable, e.g., lapse of integrity, dishonesty, financial loss, presence of a conflict of interest or damage or harm to the Organization or its staff
    • If yes, normally results in termination – separation from service or dismissal
    • If not, a range of disciplinary measures available depending on the specific facts/circumstances of each case. If appropriate/relevant, an administrative/managerial action can be done in cases with non-serious misconduct.

Range of disciplinary measures

Dismissal, separation from service, demotion with deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion, deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion, fine, suspension without pay, deferment of eligibility for salary increment, loss of one or more steps in grade, and written censure.

Proportionality assessment

Note: the below listed factors are examples only; they are not exhaustive or exclusive. Final determination of disciplinary measure(s) depends on balancing all applicable factors based on careful considerations of the evidence of misconduct and purpose of staff discipline.

Mitigating factors:

  • subject staff member’s long service, including in hardship duty stations
  • subject staff member’s personal situation relevant to conduct at issue
  • early admission, sincere remorse and/or apology
  • operational difficulty relevant to conduct at issue or a lack of proper oversight or support to subject staff member
  • subject staff member’s voluntary rectification or compensation for harm caused by conduct at issue
  • lack of private gain by subject staff member
  • junior level or limited capacity of subject staff member relevant to conduct at issue
  • any systemic failure not attributable to subject staff member.

Aggravating factors:

  • power differential or seniority of subject staff member
  • vulnerability and scope of victims subject to conduct at issue
  • existence of prior warning or explicit instructions
  • operational or reputational harm to the Organization
  • multiple victims subject to conduct at issue
  • retaliatory nature of conduct at issue
  • compound misconduct
  • repeated misconduct
  • significant financial loss to the Organization
  • willful disregard to rules or instructions
  • deliberate or manipulative nature of conduct
  • attempted or actual concealment or hampering of evidence
  • private gain by subject staff member resulting from conduct at issue
  • involving other staff members, including subordinates, in conduct.