AV

UNDT/2016/116, Nadeau

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that there was no basis for finding that the OiC/MEU’s writing in the MEU’s letter to the Applicant amounted to a breach of either ST/SGB/2008/5 or ST/AI/371 and the USG/DM, therefore, did not infringe on the Applicant’s rights when dismissing his complaints against the OiC/MEU. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant, an Investigator with the Office of Internal Oversight Services, contested the dismissal by the Under- Secretary-General for Management (“USG/DM”) of two complaints that the Applicant had submitted against the Officer-in-Charge of the Management Evaluation Unit (OiC/MEU) pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5 (Prohibition of Discrimination, Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority) and ST/AI/371 (Revised Disciplinary Measures and Procedures).

Legal Principle(s)

Scope of judicial review. The Appeals Tribunal, in Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099, defined the limitations of the judicial review when examining a staff member’s right to have action taken against another staff member for possible misconduct, stating that, “In light of ST/SGB/2008/5, Chapter XI of the Staff Rules, and the UNDT Statute, the Appeals Tribunal concludes that when the claims regard issues covered by ST/SGB/2008/5, the staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures. If he or she is dissatisfied with their outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken. The UNDT has jurisdiction to examine the administrative activity (act or omission) followed by the Administration after a request for investigation, and to decide if it was taken in accordance with the applicable law. The UNDT can also determine the legality of the conduct of the investigation.”The Applicant’s rights were not infringed. The Tribunal found that the relevant letter from MEU was written in an uncontroversial, clear, simple and plain everyday conversational English which set out the MEU’s reasons andfindings based on the management evaluation request filed by the Applicant himself. The Tribunal, therefore, found nothing contentious or improper in the letter that can in any possible manner be construed as either (a) amounting to discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment or abuse of authority as defined in ST/SGB/2008/5 or (b) suggesting that the MEU/OiC has been involved in “unsatisfactory conduct for which a disciplinary measure may be imposed” pursuant to ST/AI/371, as amended by ST/AI/371/Amend.1.

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.