2020-UNAT-1001, Applicant
UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First Reporting Officer. UNAT held that the award of compensation by UNDT was fair and reasonable. UNAT held that, given the case concerned an allegation of harassment and relied on medical evidence to support a claim for physical and moral harm, it was reasonable to redact the Appellant’s name from the judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment. UNAT ordered the Appellant’s name to be redacted from the judgment and any public pronouncement of the decision.
The staff member contested the Administration’s decision not to pursue disciplinary action against his First Reporting Officer following the staff member’s complaint of harassment and abuse of authority. UNDT was not persuaded by the Appellant’s allegations of a lack of transparency in the investigation process, a breach of confidentiality during the investigation, and a lack of evidence of any managerial actions. UNDT concluded that, while the investigation was proper, it was cumbersome and untimely and awarded the staff member moral damages as compensation for the serious impact on the staff member’s well-being and mental health and the close link between the delays in handling his complaint and the stress and anxiety that he suffered.
The institution of disciplinary proceedings against a staff member is the privilege of the Administration, and it is not legally possible to compel the Administration to take disciplinary action. To warrant compensation, there must be supporting evidence beyond the staff member’s testimony.