����AV

The allegations in the Applicant’s complaint squarely [fell] in the realm of workplace disagreements about the normal exercise of managerial authority. Section 1.1 of ST/SGB/2019/8 states that “[d]isagreement on work performance or on other work-related issues is normally not considered prohibited conduct and is not dealt with under the provisions of the present bulletin but in the context of performance management”. The responsible official’s conclusion that it was unlikely that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case (section 5.5...

The Tribunal found that the sanction in this case bore no rational connection or suitable relationship to the evidence on the record and the purpose of progressive or corrective discipline. The Applicant’s messages were mainly reactionary, and he showed great pateince in not responding to the complainant's tone. The Applicant was provoked. The Applicant identified no special circumstances which would warrant the anonymization of this matter, apart from potential personal embarrassment and discomfort, which were not sufficient grounds to grant anonymity.

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of “does not meet performance expectations” and the 2019-2020 “partially meets performance expectations”, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement “measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures”. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration’s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration’s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant’s complaint involved one specific incident, i.e., a chain of emails where his performance was being criticized, which evolved into two managerial decisions by his supervisors: a transfer of functions and instauration of a PIP. The Applicant perceived those emails as harassment. However, for a staff member’s behaviour to be punishable as constituting the disciplinary offence of harassment pursuant to ST/SGB/2019/8, the analysis of said behaviour must pass a two-fold test: it must be found “improper and unwelcome” and “might reasonably be expected or be...

The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization’s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization’s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant’s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...

The contested decision fell within the Administration’s margin of appreciation and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. Under the applicable legal framework, the Applicant is not entitled to force the Administration to investigate her complaint. To the contrary, the responsible official is provided with a discretion to initiate or not to initiate an investigation under the applicable legal framework. The decisionmaker reasonably decided not to investigate the Applicant’s complaint in light of the alleged harasser’s resignation. The decision was also procedurally compliant as the...

Having examined the evidence on file, particularly the panel’s investigation report and its annexes, the Tribunal is satisfied that OHCHR properly handled the Applicant’s complaint against his FRO, and that the case record fully supports the reasonableness of the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against said FRO. The Tribunal further observes that the Applicant’s due process rights as set forth in ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2017/1 were respected. The Applicant was inter alia interviewed and given an opportunity to provide his version of events and informed of the outcome of his...