UNDT/2020/211, Arvizu Trevino
It was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the status and management of the UNJSPF is a legitimate subject of concern to staff at large and therefore comments made by staff representatives about the management of UNJSPF concern work-related issues. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that staff rule 8.1(f) entitles staff representative bodies to effective participation in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies. It also was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the Applicant’s complaint did not identify any statement or conduct that would constitute a gross abuse by staff representatives of their right to express themselves on workplace issues. The Applicant has presented no evidence of ulterior motive.
Decision not to investigate the Applicant’s harassment complaint.
It is the responsible official’s duty to assess whether there is a ‘reasonable chance’ that the alleged facts described in the complaint—if indeed they occurred—would amount to prohibited conduct. Only in a case of serious and reasonable accusation, does a staff member have a right to an investigation against another staff member which may be subject to judicial review. The Organization has a degree of discretion how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint of prohibited conduct. The judicial review of an administrative decision involves a determination of the validity of the contested decision on grounds of legality, reasonableness and procedural fairness. If the applicant claims that the decision was ill-motivated or based on improper motives, the burden of proving any such allegations rests with the applicant.