UNDT/2023/026, Coleman
The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.
However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.
On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact take into consideration the totality of the evidence, lawfully and reasonably concluding that her allegations were either unsubstantiated or not serious enough to rise to the level of misconduct. It is well within the discretionary authority of OIAI to weigh relevant and irrelevant evidence, and to decide on the level of gravity of the conduct investigated or assessed.
The Applicant contests the decision of the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (OIAI) to close her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority without a comprehensive investigation.
The Organization has a degree of discretion on how to conduct a review and
assessment of a complaint of prohibited conduct and only in cases of a serious and reasonable accusation does a staff member have a right to an investigation against another staff member, which may be the subject to judicial review.
A complaint must have “meaningful indicia” of “prohibited conduct”.
The complainant has the burden of satisfying the responsible official that there are sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation.
Judicial review of an administrative decision involves a determination of the validity of the contested decision on grounds of legality, reasonableness and procedural fairness.