Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.
However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this motion. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT then went on to decide that there was no evidence supporting the claim for moral damages, when in fact such evidence was included in the motion.
Because the failure of the Dispute Tribunal to expressly rule on the motion was an error of procedure that affected the decision of the case as it related to the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the issue of compensation for harm to the Dispute Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT provided no opinion whether compensation should be granted but only remanded the matter to remedy the procedural error in order to ensure the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considers the medical evidence in the motion in its determination on compensation for harm.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member made the following claims at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT: (i) she had been the victim of harassment, unfair treatment, and abuse of authority; (ii) she was not selected for a position that she had applied for, and (iii) the Administration mishandled a complaint of sexual harassment that she had made four years prior.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the claims of harassment and abuse of authority because they lacked clarity and did not point to specific administrative decision(s). Regarding the non-selection claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Administration cannot be blamed for the Appellant¡¯s failure to take part in assessment when invited to do so.
However, regarding the claim of mishandling of the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took note of the inordinate amount of time it took the Administration to respond to the Appellant and the lack of communication between the Organization and the Appellant that such action (or inaction) constituted an abuse of authority. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the Administration to provide the Appellant with a clear explanation as to why her case was closed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages in the absence of supporting evidence.
Legal Principle(s)
When the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has failed to rule on a motion seeking to admit additional evidence and then goes on to decide that a request for compensation for harm cannot be granted because of lack of supporting evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can remand the case back to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to rule on the pending motion so the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT can then properly decide whether there is sufficient evidence to grant the request for compensation for harm.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
Appeal granted in part, and the issue of compensation for harm is remanded to the Dispute Tribunal for reconsideration.