Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its ultimate finding that the Administration¡¯s response to the Appellant¡¯s complaint was adequate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was not reasonable to consider that the mere inaction on the part of the Administration, particularly following the Appellant¡¯s suggestions, given at the Administration¡¯s request, was ¡°appropriate action in due course¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT partially granted the appeal and held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be partially modified in that the Administration¡¯s response to Appellant¡¯s complaint was, in addition to untimely, inadequate. The rejection of the request for compensation was affirmed.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment: The Applicant challenged the Secretary-General's failure to act in accordance with Section 3.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 with respect to his complaint of Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ staff members allegedly harassing and retaliating against their colleagues and committing wrongdoings identified as misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration had failed to address the Applicant¡¯s complaint with the mandatory promptness and concluded that the Administration might have found it difficult to properly respond to the Applicant, particularly as his apparent main problem, namely his troublesome relationship with his First Reporting Officer (FRO), was no longer an issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the application, in part; found the Administration¡¯s response to the Applicant¡¯s complaint adequate but untimely; and rejected the request for compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
Whereas ordinarily, the Organisation does not have a duty to make an explicit decision regarding every request it receives, the minimum standards of transparency determine it to comply with its own commitments once these are voluntarily given.