UNDT/2021/133

UNDT/2021/133, Loto

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The impact of ALWOP on a staff member may be as onerous as summary dismissal, but without the fundamental contractual procedural fairness protections. An international staff member on ALWOP may remain in limbo for an undetermined period of time, unable to seek alternate employment or survive financially at the duty station away from their home country. The information available when the decision was made remained the same over an extended ALWOP period. The information was not sufficient for a determination that it was more likely than not that the Applicant committed misconduct grave enough to warrant dismissal. There is no indication that any consideration was given to a phased approach of administrative leave with partial pay at the start of the investigations. The Applicant ought not to have been summarily deprived of his contractual entitlements based on the information available.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision of the Respondent to place him on Administrative Leave Without Pay.

Legal Principle(s)

ST/SGB/2003/13 (Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) makes clear that it is ‘concerns and suspicions’ that a staff member is duty bound to report. The Bulletin does not require a staff member to report mere allegations that come to their attention. It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2017/1 that when deciding whether to place a staff member on ALWOP, the authorized official, who in this case was the USG/DMSPC, must have reason to view the circumstances as exceptional. In determining that circumstances are “exceptional”, two elements must be present. Firstly the ‘unsatisfactory conduct’ the staff member is alleged to have engaged in must be grave enough to warrant separation from service (with or without notice and/or indemnity) or dismissal. Secondly, the authorized official deciding on whether to place a staff member on ALWOP must have before them, information which ‘more likely than not’ proves the staff member engaged in the unsatisfactory conduct. The regulatory framework also guides the staff member on the elements he/she should consider when deciding whether to report on private interactions between colleagues that have led to sexual abuse allegations. There is no indication that as soon as any staff member alleges to another, that a mutual colleague engaged in unwelcomed sexual conduct, the staff member receiving the information must report it to the Organization’s investigators. It is only when the staff member receiving the information is subjectively, and in good faith, concerned or suspicious that misconduct took place, that a report must be made. This may reasonably exclude a situation where the staff member has knowledge of improper motives, such as malice or extortion, for the allegation against another person being disseminated. Making a report in such circumstances may put the staff member at risk of disciplinary action for malicious reporting. It may also deprive the staff member of protection against retaliation for making the report.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

 

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Loto
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type