Judgment No. 4034
Decision
1. UNESCO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros.
2. It shall also pay her 1,000 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant claims that she was subjected to harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; harassment
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal has already ruled that under Staff Regulation 11.1, Staff Rule 111.1 and the Statutes of the Appeals Board, a former staff member cannot use the internal means of redress to challenge a decision taken after she or he has left the Organization (see Judgment 3505, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3505
Keywords
internal remedies exhausted; former official
Consideration 12
Extract:
Although the Organization is obliged to investigate any incidents that might constitute harassment, the employee must nevertheless report those incidents in good time so as to allow the Organization to fulfil its duty.
Keywords
harassment
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and [...] an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see Judgment 3347, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347
Keywords
burden of proof; harassment
Considerations 18, 19, 20
Extract:
[T]he complainant states that after the Bureau of Field Coordination was abolished, she was not notified of her exact assignment. [...]
The Tribunal observes that the patently unacceptable situation in which the complainant and numerous other officials were placed reveals a management error by the Administration but does not constitute harassment. Under the case law, unsatisfactory conduct is not, in itself, sufficient to establish harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3625, under 9).
It follows from the foregoing that the complainant has failed to show that she was a victim of harassment.
However, although the alleged harassment has not been established, the Tribunal considers that the management error identified above placed the complainant in a difficult situation that caused her moral injury. The Organization must redress its breach of the duty to provide its employees with a safe and healthy working environment by the payment of damages, which the Tribunal sets at 10,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3625
Keywords
moral injury; harassment; clerical error
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and [...] an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see Judgment 3347, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347
Keywords
harassment
| 
