AV

UNDT/2015/063

UNDT/2015/063, Nielsen

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNDT found that with respect to one of them, Mrs. V., no complaint was ever received by OAIS and the Applicant never filed a request for management evaluation concerning her; hence, the application before the Tribunal was found as not receivable on this matter. Further, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s formal complaints addressed to OAIS against her four other colleagues were untimely as they had been sent in August 2014, i.e. more than eleven months after the Applicant’s placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (“SLWFP”) in September 2013, when she stopped being in interaction with them, and almost seven months after her separation from UNFPA, whereas UNFPA Policy provides for a timelimit of six months to file a complaint following the last incident of harassment. The application was therefore rejected in full.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed UNFPA decisions, issued by its Office of Audit and Investigation Services (“OAIS”), not to review her complaints of alleged misconduct and harassment filed against five of her colleagues.

Legal Principle(s)

Requirements for a formal complaint of harassment in UNFPA: Pursuant to sec. 9.3.1 of UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority, a formal complaint has to be addressed to OAIS within six months from the date of the last incident of harassment, sexual harassment or abuse of authority. Complaints addressed to other institutions do not meet these criteria. Time limits start to run from the date of the last incident, not from a possible later date of knowledge about the alleged incident. Effects of a SLWFP on time limits: When a staff member is placed on SLWFP, he or she stops being in interaction with his or her colleagues at work on a professional basis as of that date; hence, any complaint has to be filed within six months from that date. The time limit of six months applies to each type of complainant, be it UNFPA Personnel and/or former Personnel.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Nielsen
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type