����AV

It is unequivocally incumbent upon the Organization to provide anyone who files a complaint with a properly reasoned decision, especially when the complaint is being rejected. This also enables the staff member to promptly exercise other available options including a challenge to that decision. Endless email communications do not provide staff members with finality of a determination, thus placing them in a precarious situation if they are to challenge such a decision taking note of statutory time-limits.; This Tribunal found that the decision of the former UNICEF Representative PCO not to...

The established facts considered in their entirety amount to misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can manifest itself in different forms, its determination is fact specific, and its occurrence is not limited to work places during work hours. The Applicant’s conduct amounts to sexual harassment in violation of staff rule 1.2(f). A plain reading of the Applicant’s Facebook messages shows their sexual nature. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant was put on notice that his sexual advances were unwelcome by Ms. X’s text message in July 2012 requesting that he...

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 application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The Tribunal accepts the motion to withdraw the application on the terms requested. The parties are to be praised for the approach taken in this matter. The Tribunal, on its own motion, decided to anonymize this judgment considering that since the matter was amicably resolved, it was not appropriate for the Applicant’s name to be disclosed in a public document. The Applicant’s motion to withdraw the application is granted and this case is hereby closed, with, as requested, no right of reinstatement.

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, there was no decision imposing disciplinary or administrative measures. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of any administrative decision related to the conduct of the investigation. The failure to seek management evaluation before...

Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed “exceptional circumstances” that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...

The Tribunal, after hearing evidence and submissions but before reaching a determination on the merits of the case save for a finding of procedural error, decided that this was an appropriate case in which to invoke art. 10.4 of the UNDT Statute to seek the concurrence of the Secretary-General to remand the case for institution or correction of the required procedure. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to approach the Secretary-General directly and not through Counsel who represents the SecretaryGeneral as the Respondent in this case. The Tribunal considered that such an approach would: (i...

Receivability The Tribunal found that the ASG, OHRM’s failure to take action on the Applicant’s complaint almost nine months after its filing, taking into account only the period that preceded the request for management evaluation, is a clear violation of the provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5. The Tribunal considered that the Administration’s failure to act on the Applicant’s complaint amounted to an implicit administrative decision that was subject to judicial review. The application was therefore considered receivable. Merits The Tribunal found that the failure to process the Applicant’s complaint...