UNDT/2024/059, Soum
Receivability
The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.
Merits
The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the evidence and information available to the investigators.
A complete reading of the evidence provided by the Applicant to the investigators did not disclose any preferential assignment of tasks, bias, discrimination, or any other conduct that might indicate an instance of harassment. Instead, the evidence on record showcases the Applicant’s own disagreements over the distribution of tasks within the unit, and work and performance-related grievances with her FRO.
On review of the evidence on record, the Tribunal agrees with Inspector General's Office (IGO) that the evidence the Applicant provided does not support her allegations and, that, even if proven, would fall within the scope of performance management.
As such, it finds no legal or significant factual basis to overturn the decision of IGO concerning its conclusion that the Applicant’s allegations fell outside its mandate and did not warrant a full investigation.
Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Organization took appropriate steps to support the Applicant’s request to be removed from a work environment she found disagreeable, and does not find any duty of care violations.
Consequently, the Tribunal decided to reject the application in its entirety.
The Applicant contests the decision not to initiate a full fact-finding investigation into her allegations of harassment, discrimination, islamophobia, and racism, against her First Reporting Officer.
In determining the lawfulness of an administration decision concerning the investigation of a complaint, the Tribunal may “enter into an examination of the propriety of the procedural steps that preceded and informed the decision eventually made, inasmuch as they may have impacted the final outcomeâ€.
Accordingly, in assessing the legality of the decision not to initiate an investigation into the Applicant’s complaint, “the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint and the investigation process that ensued, as set out primarily in ST/SGB/2008/5â€.
In cases of harassment and abuse of authority, the Tribunal is not vested with the authority to conduct a fresh investigation into the initial complaint. As for any discretionary decision of the Organization, it is not the Tribunal’s role to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration.