Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s complaints to OAIS were not receivable because of her status as a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as a former staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, the Appellant had an entitlement to file a formal complaint with the Director of OAIS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that the Appellant¡¯s opportunity to challenge OAIS¡¯ findings had been forfeited by her failure to bring the communication of 31 March 2015 to the attention of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which she alleged to constitute evidence of the extension of the six months deadline for submitting her complain. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the complaints filed by the Appellant on 29 November 2014 and 23 December 2014, respectively, against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director, the communication of 31 March 2015 did no more than advise her that OAIS had no jurisdiction to investigate such complaints and that they would be referred to ¡°another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ agency/Organisation for assessment and/or investigation¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that nothing in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment should be read as interfering with the suggested mechanism for the processing of the Appellant¡¯s complaints against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, save that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT deemed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment did not encompass the actions of OAIS in referring two of the Applicant¡¯s complaints to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ agency/Organisation, a referral that should be allowed to run its course.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant challenged the United Nations Population Fund¡¯s (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA) inaction on her complaints of improper behaviour, harassment, and abuse of authority toward her by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s DHR, Executive Director, and Legal Offices, respectively. In a summary judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had filed her first complaint to the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS), almost nine months after her separation, beyond the six-month time limit set forth in Section 9. 3. 1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority (2013 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the Applicant had no legal standing to file complaints with OAIS because, at the time of her filing, she was neither a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA nor an individual independent contractor associated with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA within the meaning of ¡°Personnel¡± of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy mentioned. The Applicant appealed and later filed a motion to request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to extend her rights as a staff member or to admit that they were extended by the Executive Director of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, to which the Secretary-General filed an objection.
Legal Principle(s)
Left deliberately blank