2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1001

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Ģ��ƵAT found no errors in the Ģ��ƵDT��s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant��s rights. Ģ��ƵAT found no errors in Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT held that the award of compensation by Ģ��ƵDT was fair and reasonable. Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT ordered the Appellant��s name to be redacted from the judgment and any public pronouncement of the decision.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

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. Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵDT 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.

Legal Principle(s)

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.

Outcome

Appeal 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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement