¹ú²úAV

Noting that there is nothing in the strict interpretation of section 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 to exclude a series of discrete acts performed by more than a single individual from constituting prohibited conduct for which the Organization bears responsibility, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s allegations of institutionally enabled, or tolerated, harassment did not relate to one off incidents. Under ST/SGB/2008/5, the ES’s duty was to examine the complaint in its entirety to see whether it raised issues of prohibited conduct to which the Applicant may have still been suffering from. Instead...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties’ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Tribunal ruled that Annex 18 to the application was inadmissible. According to the Applicant, the annexure comprised of a publicly released commentary and analysis of the case. The Tribunal found that such commentary has no value, evidential or otherwise, being that whoever compiled it was not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. That being the case, the veracity of the comments was not and could not be tested. The commentary neither amounted to evidence nor to parties’ submissions. Based on the uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant refused to participate in a follow-up interview...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization’s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant’s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

Concerning the corrective measures: To the extent that the fact-finding panel’s investigation resulted in a finding of actions on the part of the Applicant that called for corrective measures in the form of training and counselling, the Respondent’s actions were procedurally proper. The cautionary corrective measure of providing training and counselling for the Applicant was appropriately taken in accordance with ST/SGB/2008/5 in circumstances where, although there was no misconduct, the Applicant’s manner of performing his duties caused a staff member to feel harassed. Concerning the decision...

The ASG/OIOS was appointed as OiC by the previous USG/OIOS pending the appointment of a new head of entity. The mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term does not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid and there is no allegation or evidence that subdelegations to the ASG/OIOS as OiC/OIOS were withdrawn or modified by the new USG/OIOS. Rather, in the contested decision, the ASG/OIOS used his title as OiC/OIOS. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the contested decision was made by the authorized responsible official. While the OiC/OIOS’s decision does not refer to the specific...

The Applicant’s complaints were remanded once more to the Respondent for a proper investigation in compliance with the regulatory framework. The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a copy of her interview transcript and summary (if any) prepared by outside provider and used in the prior investigation.

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant’s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant’s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant’s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available...

The past practice of the Organization in cases involving sexual harassment shows that disciplinary measures have been imposed at the strictest end of the spectrum, namely, separation from service or dismissal in accordance with staff rule 10.2(a), which has been affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in various judgments