UNDT/2011/050, Ostensson
The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration’s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related issues are not automatically excluded from the scope of ST/SG/2008/5. Right to submit a harassment complaint: The right to submit a harassment complaint and to have it promptly reviewed is a key element of the policy set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and a fundamental procedural safeguard for staff members. Standard for initiating an investigation: A fact-finding investigation ought to be initiated if the overall circumstances of the particular case offer at least a reasonable chance that the alleged facts may amount to prohibited conduct within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Even if some of the reported incidents, considered individually, may not necessarily amount to harassment, the allegations taken together regarding events that happened within a short time-span may warrant an investigation. Duty to act expeditiously: The delay in addressing the Applicant’s complaint contravenes ST/SGB/2008/5, which imposes on the Administration a duty to act expeditiously. Prejudice and compensation: Compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. Standard for setting compensation: Proportionality requires that all the circumstances of the case be taken into account. Among the various elements to be considered for the purpose of determining appropriate compensation are the nature of the irregularity, the number and intensity of breaches, the impact thereof on the applicant, and the values and principles at stake.
On 7 July 2008, the Applicant submitted a formal complaint pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5, alleging harassment on the part of his direct supervisor. The Administration decided on 21 July 2008 not to investigate his allegations on the grounds that the matter did not amount to harassment and rather fell into the category of disagreements on work performance or on other work-related issues, and the Applicant was so informed in late October 2008. The Applicant contested the decision not to take action.
N/A