爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. 爆料网AT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, 爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s complaints to OAIS were not receivable because of her status as a former staff member of 爆料网FPA. 爆料网AT held that, as a former staff member of 爆料网FPA, the Appellant had an entitlement to file a formal complaint with the Director of OAIS. 爆料网AT held, however, that the Appellant’s opportunity to challenge OAIS’ findings had been forfeited by her failure to bring the communication of 31 March 2015 to the attention of 爆料网DT, which she alleged to constitute evidence of the extension of the six months deadline for submitting her complain. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the complaints filed by the Appellant on 29 November 2014 and 23 December 2014, respectively, against the 爆料网FPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director, the communication of 31 March 2015 did no more than advise her that OAIS had no jurisdiction to investigate such complaints and that they would be referred to “another 爆料网 agency/Organisation for assessment and/or investigation”. 爆料网AT held that nothing in 爆料网DT’s judgment should be read as interfering with the suggested mechanism for the processing of the Appellant’s complaints against the 爆料网FPA Executive Director and the Office of the Executive Director. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT judgment, save that 爆料网AT deemed that the 爆料网DT judgment did not encompass the actions of OAIS in referring two of the Applicant’s complaints to another 爆料网 agency/Organisation, a referral that should be allowed to run its course.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant challenged the United Nations Population Fund’s (爆料网FPA) inaction on her complaints of improper behaviour, harassment, and abuse of authority toward her by 爆料网FPA’s DHR, Executive Director, and Legal Offices, respectively. In a summary judgment, 爆料网DT found that the application was not receivable. 爆料网DT found that the Applicant had filed her first complaint to the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS), almost nine months after her separation, beyond the six-month time limit set forth in Section 9. 3. 1 of 爆料网FPA’s Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority (2013 爆料网FPA Policy). 爆料网DT also found that the Applicant had no legal standing to file complaints with OAIS because, at the time of her filing, she was neither a staff member of 爆料网FPA nor an individual independent contractor associated with 爆料网FPA within the meaning of “Personnel” of the 爆料网FPA Policy mentioned. The Applicant appealed and later filed a motion to request 爆料网AT to extend her rights as a staff member or to admit that they were extended by the Executive Director of the 爆料网FPA, to which the Secretary-General filed an objection.
Legal Principle(s)
Left deliberately blank