9. Place for Harassment

It is established case law of the Tribunal that the decision against harassment to be directed towards relief and end harassment. But the Tribunal’s decision in this Judgment was not taking towards relief or end harassment.

The Tribunal admitted “the complaint is well founded on the ground of harassment, which, compendiously was egregious and entitles the complainant to significant moral damages” and “[I] suffered harassment, which was both personal and institutional”. However, no responsive and effective remedies for harassment were decided.

Compensation for harassment was legally established as relief from the harms of harassment. The Tribunal should therefore award an amount of compensation that is exactly equivalent to the actual moral damage suffered. Remedies should be assessed proportionately to the seriousness and to end the harassment. Such remedies should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In addition Remedies should be specified. Measures to ensure that victim is made aware of the existence of such remedies should be taken. However, the Tribunal decided that the moral damages for harassment were included in the total damages which included also material damages for not extending my fixed term contract.

This decision neither relieved the harm of harassment nor formed a penalty for the offenders. It seems that the Tribunal decision encourages harassment in the United Nations’ organizations.

The Tribunal did not rule on the claim that the defendant organization did not protect me against harassment. The defendant organization glossed over harassment. The Tribunal confirmed “[T]here is no evidence that prompt or proactive measures were taken, as the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment contained in Circular No. 2007/05 requires, to address the complainant’s situation”.

The Tribunal did not take into account that the defendant organization breached the Administrative Circular 2007/05.E on policy on the prevention of harassment and Standards of Conducts for the International Civil Service by ignoring my complaints on harassment during my work with the defendant organization. I submitted two complaints on harassment to the Assistant Director-General of FAO Regional Office for the Near East and to the defendant organization Inspector General. However, both complaints were ignored.

The Tribunal did not take into account its statement “[I] complained in [my] letters of 19 and 25 August 2008 of obstruction to [my] work, mismanagement of the project, financial irregularities, and other harassing circumstances. In contravention of the FAO’s Policy on the Prevention of Harassment, the Tribunal’s consistent statements that harassment complaints must be dealt with promptly, and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, which are contained in Appendix A to Section 304 of the FAO Manual, no action was taken in response to the allegations made by the complainant in those letters. The OIG only responded to the complainant’s letter of 25 August 2008 when in a letter of 3 December 2008 [I] reminded the OIG that [I] had sent the earlier letter and repeated some of [my] allegations. The OIG’s response was that the project had already been audited. In fact, as the Appeals Committee found, the audit in question was carried out in March 2008, prior to the complainant’s letters. There is no evidence that either the Regional Representative for RNE or the OIG, to whom the letters of 19 and 25 August 2008 were respectively addressed, intervened or took appropriate or corrective action in response to what had been reported by the complainant. The failure by the Administration to take urgent steps to deal with [my] earlier complaints bears out [my]assertion that the matter was not managed in accordance with the FAO’s Policy on the Prevention of Harassment”.

The Tribunal did not take into account its statement “The Tribunal has also stated, in Judgment 3065, under 10, for example, that an accusation of harassment requires that “an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused””.

The Tribunal admitted “In addition, there is no evidence that prompt or proactive measures were taken, as the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment contained in Circular No. 2007/05 requires, to address [my] situation”.

This is the harasser.