2014-UNAT-453, Rahman
UNAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman’s appeal, UNAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. UNAT found that UNDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman’s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. UNAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. UNAT found that UNDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to UNCTAD in Geneva had been abrogated by the decision of 30 April 2012 to place him in New York as of 1 June 2012 until his retirement date, rendering this application non-receivable. UNAT held that UNDT correctly applied the law in not granting Mr Rahman an order for costs against the Secretary-General. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that it was the Secretary-General’s responsibility to dispense justice for the victim was lawful. UNAT further held that the Secretary-General did not show that UNDT erred in law or in fact. UNAT dismissed both parties’ appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Mr Rahman contested the decisions to not select him for a post and to reassign him. UNDT rejected his allegation that he had been a victim of retaliation during the selection process, as well as his request for compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. UNDT also held that the original decision to reassign him to Geneva had been rendered moot by the subsequent decision to retain him in New York. UNDT noted that Mr Rahman had been advised that the disciplinary processes had been undertaken with respect to the alleged perpetrators of the retaliation (perpetrators), but he had not been informed of the outcome thereof. UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to inform Mr Rahman as soon as possible of the nature of the disciplinary measures imposed on the perpetrators.
A victim of retaliation is entitled to know whether justice was done to the perpetrators of the retaliation, and it is fair and reasonable to require the Secretary-General to provide this information, regardless of whether there is any legal provision to that effect.