����AV

The acts of sexual harassment committed by the Applicant were of such a persistent and offensive nature that in keeping with the Organization’s zero-tolerance policy he could not remain on the job. However, the Organization’s policy on care and support for persons suffering with mental illness was also clear. The Applicant’s behaviour was influenced by severe mental illness. The illness ought to have been addressed in a more timely and considerate manner by the Respondent by denying his clearance to return to work in March 2015 and in August 2016. He may then have retired due to ill-health with disability benefits and a record clean of misconduct. The Respondent’s position, as testified to by the Head of Medical Entitlements, that the Organization does not bear “a duty of care” to staff members with mental health challenges needed to be re-examined. The position that one has to exhaust all of one’s entitlement to certified sick leave before being considered fit for separation on grounds of ill health should be revisited. The Tribunal believed that a holistic review of the Applicant’s medical records coupled with the evidence that the Respondent had of the Applicant’s egregious behavior would, at the very least, have suggested that something was amiss and prompted a deeper inquiry. The Respondent’s review of the record and decision to clear the Applicant’s return to Mali in 2016 was not properly informed. The Applicant’s substance abuse, contrary to the laws of the host country, would itself have given rise to disciplinary proceedings and sanction.