�山����

There is a commitment that all international organizations must have “zero tolerance” for harassment in the workplace and will not tolerate conduct that can be construed as harassment, sexual harassment or abuse of authority. This is especially true for the United Nations, as such behaviour or conduct is contrary to the spirit of the United Nations Charter, its Staff Regulations and Rules and to the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The “zero tolerance” policy is aimed at providing a safe environment for all United Nations employees, free from discrimination on any grounds and from harassment at work, including sexual harassment. As a general rule, this policy aims to tackle the issue of harassment in the workplace mainly by means of two methods. The first and more immediate one has the corrective purpose of addressing any possible inappropriate behaviour and applying the necessary measures according to the situation. The second and broader one has the preventative aim of promoting a positive work environment and preventing inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. It is well-settled in the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence that, under the above provisions, the Administration of the Organization has a duty of care to ensure a harmonious work environment and protect staff members from harm by way of, inter alia, taking appropriate preventive and remedial measures in each specific case. This duty is an inherent part of the employment relationship and a fundamental condition of service and must be fulfilled by the Administration with due diligence and without delay. The Dispute Tribunal has broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure to determine the admissibility of any evidence and the weight to be attached to such evidence. The findings of fact made by the UNDT can only be disturbed under Article 2(1)(e) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute when there is an error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. This Tribunal is mindful that the Judge hearing the case has an appreciation of all the issues for determination and the evidence before it. There exists, in general, an employer’s duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of their employees and other people who might be affected by their business. The employer must do whatever is reasonably practicable to achieve this by making sure that workers and others are protected from anything that may cause harm, effectively controlling any risks to injury or health that could arise in the workplace. An entitlement to moral damages may arise where there is evidence produced to the Tribunal by way of a medical, psychological report or otherwise of harm, stress or anxiety caused to the employee, which can be directly linked, or reasonably attributed, to a breach of his or her substantive or procedural rights and where the Tribunal is satisfied that the stress, harm or anxiety is such as to merit a compensatory award. Compensation must be set by the UNDT following a principled approach and on a case-by-case basis.  The Appeals Tribunal will not interfere lightly as the Dispute Tribunal is in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its appreciation of the case.