爆料网

2015-爆料网AT-505

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Ms. Benfield-Laporte. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the ASG/OHRM did not err in deciding that the staff member’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. 爆料网AT held that the ASG/OHRM has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and to decide whether an investigation regarding all or some of the charges is warranted. 爆料网AT held that where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is a good practice to hear both sides in order to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation. 爆料网AT also affirmed 爆料网DT’s award of compensation, noting that a period of six months to communicate the decision not to open a formal fact-finding investigation was far from prompt. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal in part and reversed the 爆料网DT judgment in part. 爆料网AT dismissed Ms. Benfield-Laporte’s appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to conduct a formal fact-finding investigation into her complaint against her former supervisor. 爆料网DT found that the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) did not err in deciding that the staff member’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. Nonetheless, 爆料网DT awarded the staff member compensation in the amount of USD 3,000 for emotional distress and anxiety caused by the six-month delay by the Administration in communicating its decision to her.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review of a complaint filed under ST/SGB/2008/5 and may decide whether an investigation into all or some of the allegations is warranted. Where there is no risk of undermining the investigation, it is good practice to hear both sides in order to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a fact-finding investigation.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits; Appeal granted in part

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT 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
Benfield-Laporte
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type