7. ILO Tribunal Protected FAO Director-General

ILO Tribunal prevented FAO Director- General of being implicated in the affair of this case. The tribunal tried to protect the defendant organization and its officials by not taking into accounts several facts and breaches. This is evidence that the Tribunal chose to protect the defendant organization rather than to achieve Justice.

The Tribunal tried to defend the Director-General of the defendant organization by stating “The Tribunal finds that this is a case in which the Investigation Panel fell into manifest error when it found that the complainant was not harassed. That error was adopted by the Appeals Committee when it accepted that Panel’s findings and recommended that the complainant’s claim for compensation for harassment be dismissed. Consequently, the Director-General erred by accepting this recommendation in the impugned decision”. However, this allegation of the Tribunal is not true. The Tribunal did not take into account that before submitting an appeal to the appeal committee, I submitted an appeal to the Director-General. The conclusion of the reply to my appeal to the Director General was ”In conclusion, it is considered that you have not adduced any evidence to show either that the Panel conducted its investigation in contravention of its mandate or the Policy on Harassment, nor that your complaint was not treated in accordance with the relevant procedures. I would also reiterate that the Panel reached its conclusions further to an in-depth review and analysis of the evidence before it, including voluminous documentary evidence and the interview of 13 witnesses and I would stress that its findings and conclusions are based on the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof. There are no valid elements before me to question the validity of the Panel’s findings and conclusions, nor the resulting decision made by the Director, CSH. I wish to inform you, therefore, that your appeal is hereby dismissed as without merit”. That means the Director-General rejected my harassment claims before submitting my appeal to the appeal committee. Thus it is not true that Director-General erred by accepting the recommendations of appeal committee. But the Tribunal tried to clear the Director-General of the defendant organization and blame the appeal committee for affecting the decision of the Director-General.

The Tribunal stated “On 4 December 2008 the OIG replied that the project in question had been audited and that the issues raised by the complainant were currently being analysed by Management”. However, the Tribunal did not take into account that the mentioned auditing was carried out months before I submitted my complaint and it was not in response to my compliant. The Tribunal tried to defend the defendant organization’s Inspector General by trying to show that he responded to my claims.

The Tribunal did not rule on the claims that I submitted complaints with all my allegations to Assistant Director-General of FAO Regional Office for the Near East and to the Inspector General of defendant organization. However, my complaints were ignored.

The Tribunal did not take into account Article 45 of the report of the Investigation Panel on Harassment that stated “Respondent #1 states that FAO office in Riyadh was not involved in the decision not to renew the contract of the Complainant, that instead the decision came from the Ministry, specially the Deputy Minister for Research and Agricultural Development. Respondent #1 wrote to the technical officer at headquarters on 17 May 2008 stating that “the ministry has decided not to renew [] the contract of Mr El Obeidy, CTA” (emphasis added). Respondent #1 testified that he tried to convince the NPD to allow the contract to be extended for six months but this was denied. Respondent #1 also states that he asked the ADG/RNE to contact the Deputy Minister to extend the contract of the Complainant at least until a suitable replacement could be found but this also was denied. On 7 September 2008 the ADG/RNE told the Operations officer in RNE (a retired staff member) that the Ministry of Agriculture of KSA had confirmed that they did not agree with extension of Complainant beyond his NTE date”.

The Tribunal did not take into account that the appeal committee evidence “There was certainly clear evidence that the appellant’s situation had not been properly managed (e.g. UN Security recommendations not followed, no response provided to the appellant’s reports regarding alleged financial irregularities, apparently no evaluation done of the appellant’s work, no prior warning of his non-renewal, delays in the separation formalities)”.

The tribunal alleged “On 9 January 2009 the complainant submitted a complaint of harassment to the Director of the Human Resources Management Division (CSH)”. This allegation is no true. My complaint entitled “Complaint about misconduct, harassments and conspiracies done by FAO office in Riyadh”. The complaint included allegations of retaliation against me by not extending my contract, harassment and not supplying me with a satellite phone as recommended by UNDSS. There is no reason for the Tribunal to state “submitted a complaint of harassment”. It seems the Tribunal intended to ignore the allegations of retaliation and breach the UNDSS’ recommendations. The reason of course is to avoid considering my allegation on retaliation that involved significant breaches by the defendant organization, which were connected to corruption and money laundering. The Tribunal did not take into account that it stated in the same Judgment “The complainant’s allegation of retaliation was similarly framed in his first formal complaint to the Director of CSH on 9 January 2009 with his other allegations of harassment and deprivation of the proper telephone communication facilities.” In addition the Tribunal did not take into account the finding by the appeal committee “The Committee considered that these other allegations were indeed of different nature, and therefore the Investigation Panel was not the appropriate body to investigate them. Based on the [following], the Committee greed they should have been investigated by the Organization’s appropriate body, presumably OIG, as allegations or retaliation as a result of the appellant’s complains of alleged financial irregularities founded in project UTFN/SAU/018/SAU and his willingness to change the way the project funds were used”.

The tribunal did not take into account other findings and recommendations by the appeal committee on retaliation or protecting me against retaliation.

The Tribunal did not take into account the Report of the Independent External Evaluation of the defendant organization that concluded “the organization risked terminal decline due to its weak governance and lack of transparency and accountability”.