��DT/2015/051

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The ��DT reviewed the procedure followed by the ASG/OHRM to reach her decision to close the complaint, and found that although the Chief, JMS, did not follow the correct procedure of consulting with the �� Medical Director about the request for the Applicant not to attend work, it was open to the ASG/OHRM to conclude that the conduct of the Chief, JMS, did not warrant any disciplinary or administrative action. Indeed, the Tribunal considered that the Chief, JMS, faced a complex situation, which included the Applicant��s illness and the potential for disrupting patients of the JMS clinic. The Tribunal found that the decision not to take any action against the Chief, JMS, rested on the ASG/OHRM based on her consideration of the facts contained in the fact-finding panel��s report. The decision was, however, marred by delay since it was only conveyed to the Applicant seven months after the second investigation into her complaint commenced; hence, the Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD3,000 compensation for moral damage.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed the conclusion reached by the ASG/OHRM on her complaint of harassment filed against her supervisor, the Chief, Joint Medical Services (��JMS��) at ��ON.

Legal Principle(s)

Review of decisions based on ST/SGB/2008/5: - The ��DT may not conduct a fresh investigation into the allegations of harassment, but may draw its own conclusions from the panel��s report and determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations.- A request for information from the ASG/OHRM, following the receipt of the fact-finding panel��s report and addressed to the Chief, JMS, and the Director of Medical Services Division, regarding the reasons for requesting the Applicant to obtain a medical report attesting to her fitness for duty and not to enter ��ON premises, is tantamount to a request for clarification of the reasons for the facts as found by the investigation, and does not undermine the investigation; hence, it is lawful and does not constitute a breach of the Applicant��s due process rights.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Only financial compensation

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��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

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement