Inside the UN’s Culture of Retaliation: A Senior Staff’s Story of Integrity, Corruption, and Justice Denied

Three years ago today, I won my second and final appeal against the United Nations—a victory that, while significant, laid bare the depth of the UN’s failures in delivering real justice. As a former UN Chief of Operations, I dedicated over 20 years to upholding the values the United Nations claims to represent. But when I exposed unethical practices by senior officials, I faced systematic retaliation that shook my faith in the organization. My story sheds light on the UN’s deep-seated accountability issues, from manipulation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to the hollow promises of the UN’s mental health strategy. Despite winning multiple tribunal cases, I, like many others, was not reinstated—reflecting a system that too often protects itself rather than its people. Today, as the founder of Certioraris.com, I’m using my experience to support others who face similar challenges, advocating for true justice and reform within institutions that must live up to their ideals. This is a story of courage, resilience, and the urgent need for change within the UN—one that everyone committed to justice needs to read.

For over 20 years, I dedicated my life to the United Nations, working as the Chief of Operations in hardship duty stations and on critical start-up missions across the globe. My roles were multifaceted, often involving the launch of complex operations and initiatives that promoted gender parity and systemic reform within the UN. My career was a testament to integrity and perseverance, but it was also a path that led me to uncover deep-rooted corruption. Today, on the third anniversary of my successful appeal before the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), I reflect on a journey that should have exemplified justice but instead exposed a UN system that prioritizes self-preservation over accountability.

Standing Up for Integrity and the Cost of Doing So
My journey took a dark turn when I reported severe violations of UN regulations by senior officials at #UNRWA. From unethical promotions to blatant manipulation of recruitment processes and financial misconduct, I documented practices that contradicted the very principles the UN upholds. My position demanded vigilance and adherence to integrity, which meant challenging these breaches and holding all staff to the same standards. However, in taking a stand, I became a target of a systematic retaliation campaign led by the most senior male colleagues, including my own supervisor. Together, they fabricated accusations to tarnish my record, isolate me, and ultimately push me out. The United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal (UNDT and UNAT) later affirmed my claims, revealing that my termination was not due to any misconduct but rather an orchestrated attempt to silence me.

A Pattern of Success at the Tribunal—With No Real Justice

This was not the first time I had won a tribunal case. Throughout my career, I faced numerous attempts to derail my work, and each time, I fought back, securing victories in multiple tribunal cases with both the UNDT and the UNAT. But the true measure of justice is not merely a legal win; it’s in the actions taken afterward. Despite my victories, the UN’s response was shameful: ignore the rulings, refuse to reinstate me, and opt for payment in lieu.

Achieving justice within this complex system is nearly impossible for most UN staff. For most UN staff members, the odds of winning a tribunal case are almost insurmountable. My success came only because of my technical, in-depth knowledge of the rules and a relentless determination to see justice served. Without such insight, the average employee would face an uphill battle against a system designed to protect the institution rather than the individual.

The clause allowing payment in lieu of reinstatement is a perfect tool for the UN—a way to appease legal rulings without genuinely addressing the wrongs done to its staff. Since the UN’s justice system was reformed in 2010, not a single staff member who has won a case has been reinstated. This speaks volumes about the UN’s commitment to justice—a system that claims fairness yet systematically denies reinstatement to those who have been wronged.

A Victory in Name Only: Exposing Senior Officials’ Harassment and Gender Discrimination
One of my significant victories was an investigation that confirmed harassment, intimidation, gender discrimination, and bullying by a former Director of HR and a senior Director of Investigations at #UNRWA. A senior legal officer, complicit in their campaign, contributed to what can only be described as a coordinated “war” against me. Despite winning this investigation, these officials faced no repercussions. One was even permitted to leave with a substantial compensation package.

My experience reflects a troubling pattern within the UN, where women face disproportionate challenges in advancing and maintaining long-term careers. The judgments detail how senior male colleagues, including my supervisor, coordinated a campaign to fabricate accusations to discredit me. The harassment was so severe, with several men creating a hostile environment to isolate me and undermine my work. This coordinated action against a senior female official illuminates the deeply rooted obstacles women confront in the UN, especially when they challenge corruption and unethical practices. The organization’s failure to address these gender-based challenges weakens its commitment to equality, leaving talented women vulnerable to bullying and discrimination.

The then-Commissioner-General of #UNRWA disregarded my vindication entirely, allowing the perpetrators of my harassment to walk away unscathed while my career was dismantled. The irony was clear: I was ousted as a senior leader dedicated to transparency and reform, while those responsible for gross misconduct were protected.

The Unacceptable “Settlement” Offer: Bribery Disguised as a Settlement

Perhaps the most astonishing moment of my ordeal was a meeting with the former Commissioner-General of #UNRWA, a meeting that left me questioning every principle the UN claims to uphold. As he sat across from me, he held two things: a lucrative settlement offer and, in his other hand, an alleged letter of termination for misconduct. His offer was clear: resign quietly, take the money, a “good reference,” and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement waiving my rights to submit any claim against him or his senior management members or else face immediate dismissal. In that moment, all the UN’s values and principles—transparency, integrity, justice—vanished.

If my actions had truly warranted termination, why was he offering me an exit with a “good reference”? Why was he asking me to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement if he was sure of his actions and had done nothing wrong? The only plausible answer was that he sought to buy my silence, attempting to use the offer to shield both himself and the organization from scrutiny. The scene was both shocking and surreal, as he attempted to wield the “Damocles sword” of termination over my head, coercing me to leave in exchange for financial compensation.

I made it clear to the former Commisioner-General that I would not accept this bribe to cover up his misconduct and those of his senior management. I know today that the Commissioner-General will never forget that meeting or the words I said to him. He knows that, too and he knows the truth. Later, I provided the tribunal with a verbatim record of our conversation—a document that reveals the lengths he was willing to go to silence me. His actions and statements affected me profoundly, eroding my faith not only in him but in the entire organization. He has never apologized for this betrayal, perhaps out of fear of my response if he were to reach out. At one point, I held high respect for him, but his actions in that meeting alone have made me question the ethical core of the UN itself.

OIOS: Oversight in Name, Complicity in Practice
The role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in my case was particularly troubling. OIOS, tasked with investigating misconduct, instead acted in concert with senior officials to facilitate my removal. The tribunal findings highlighted OIOS’s conflict of interest, a fact underscored by its blatant disregard for witness testimonies and crucial evidence that could have cleared my name. Rather than upholding justice, OIOS became an instrument of retaliation, amplifying the false allegations against me while ignoring the documented misconduct of those I had exposed. This misuse of investigative power not only damaged my career but also revealed a deeper flaw in the UN’s oversight mechanisms—a system that claims objectivity yet operates in service of those it should hold accountable.

The Secretary-General’s “Mental Health Strategy”: A Failed Promise
The Secretary-General’s system-wide mental health strategy is often touted as evidence of the UN’s commitment to staff well-being. But my experience—and that of countless others—reveals a starkly different reality. This so-called strategy is, in essence, little more than rhetoric. Staff members who challenge corruption face prolonged harassment and isolation, with no meaningful support or protection. The UN’s mental health initiatives are cosmetic, lacking substance or genuine commitment. If the organization truly valued the mental well-being of its employees, it would address the root causes of stress and retaliation, rather than merely offering superficial solutions. A true commitment to mental health would create a culture where individuals feel safe and valued, not targeted for upholding ethical standards.

Certioraris.com: Advocating for the Silenced
While my career at the UN ended prematurely, I have channeled my experience into a new mission: supporting others who find themselves ensnared in similar struggles. As the founder of Certioraris.com, I receive hundreds of messages daily, many from individuals reaching out anonymously, fearful of the consequences of speaking up. Through Certioraris, I offer resources, guidance, and advocacy for those trapped within institutional systems that punish integrity. My goal is to empower these individuals, giving them the tools to navigate and challenge the injustices they face. Certioraris has become a refuge for those who, like me, have witnessed the gap between the UN’s public ideals and its internal practices.

A Demand for Reform, Not Empty Promises


My story is not unique; it is one of many that underscores the urgent need for structural reform within the UN. The Secretary-General’s refusal to reinstate staff who have won tribunal cases, the misuse of OIOS investigations, and the failure of the Ethics Office to protect whistleblowers all point to a system designed to insulate itself from accountability.

The UN cannot continue to ignore its internal failures while claiming to champion justice and integrity on the world stage. Genuine reform requires dismantling the culture of impunity that protects senior officials and prioritizing accountability over self-preservation. Until these changes are enacted, the UN will continue to lose committed professionals who once believed in its mission.

Real justice demands action, not rhetoric, and the time for that action is now.

On New Year’s Eve, Women Need Sanitary Pads

As the year draws to a close, people started to exchange end-of-year reflections, New Year’s resolutions, and heartfelt New Year greetings for 2024 across various social media platforms.

But one Palestinian journalist in Gaza Hind Khoudari, who had been reporting non stop from the Gaza Strip had a different end-of-year message:

She tweeted:

“I never thought I would be tweeting begging the world for sanitary products.

NEVER in my life thought I would be here.”

“Guys, I am serious bring in carefree and daily liners into Gaza. There has been no liners in Gaza for more than a month now.”

Uncomfortable.

Awkward.

Truth

That is the reality of women and young girls in Gaza.

A topic that is often overlooked and stigmatized. No one wants to talk about the consequences of Israel’s blockade on Gaza women and their menstruation.

A month ago, journalist Roudayna Raydan reported about the dire living conditions in overcrowded shelters and widespread displacement in the Gaza strip, that are forcing Gaza women to resort to unconventional measures to delay their menstrual cycle.

Women and girls in Gaza are turning to Norethisterone, a medication typically prescribed for severe menstrual pain, heavy bleeding, and endometriosis, that is now being used as a means of delaying menstruation.

In her article, Roudayna reports that:

“The dire circumstances coupled with trauma stemming from the conflict have a severe impact on the women and girls in Gaza including  an increased likelihood of urinary tract infections, childbirth complications, and transmission of infections such as hepatitis B and thrush due to neglecting hand cleanliness as a part of product change practices.

The inadequate provision of hygiene supplies in Gaza exposes women and girls to diseases and infections while also undermining their dignity.”

In moments such as when Hind Khoudari poignantly poses questions towards global feminists on Twitter or when Roudayna Raydan pens a comprehensive article highlighting the gravity of the situation, one can’t help but wonder – where does UN Women stand amidst all this?

Well, if you must ask, besides having a grandiose campaign to end the menstruation stigma around the world, they are currently busy investigating and possibly preparing to fire a dedicated senior UNWomen staffer, Sarah Douglas, who has been tweeting in support of Palestinians and against the Israeli genocide since the start of the Gaza war.

One may ask why?

An Israeli blog launched a campaign and a petition demanding that Sarah Douglas be fired and lobbied with two American senators to fire her, calling her a  “terrorist sympathizer”. Thus the Israeli propaganda machine unleashed its wrath on her.

Mr. Secretary-General,

UNWomen Chief, Ms. Sima Bahous,

How can you uphold the dignity of women in Gaza when you’re incapable of doing the same for your own staff at the United Nations? 

When you are incapable of protecting your own UN staff?

When all you do is succumb to the Israeli disinformation, propaganda, and hate speech campaigns?

When the wave of misrepresentation and deceitful narratives against Sarah Douglas is essentially because she is married to a Palestinian individual?

UN Women:

Do you want to end the stigma: could you start by protecting your own staff.

#UNWomen

It’s time align your actions to your declarations.

How OIOS, the Controller, and a weak UNDT order on interim measures will force a long-term serving D-2 Director out of the United Nations.


A committed long-term serving United Nations senior staff, Mr. Anthony O’Mullane, Director at the D-2 level in the Office of Information and Communications Technology (OICT), is facing a malicious scheme to marginalize and ostracize him under the pretext of the illustrious “restructuring exercise” in retaliation for having denounced financial irregularities in the UN Secretariat.


Once a senior staff member dares to denounce another one, in this case, the Controller (whose position in the United Nations is untouchable), the United Nations war machines will be unleashed upon him. In Mr. O’Mullane’s case, his crime was that he dared to question financial irregularities, a duty entrusted to him as a senior staff of the Organization.

He also dared to file appeals against OIOS and the Controller.

And so the Secretary-General’s war machine was launched.


First, a restructuring exercise must be hastily prepared and documented through various piles of memoranda and Excel sheets to preempt any possible subsequent allegation of retaliation and to liken the shady exercise to a legitimate one before the UN Dispute Tribunal.


Second, instructions are promptly communicated to OIOS not to initiate any fact-finding or investigations into Mr. O’Mullane’s complaints despite the seriousness of his allegations of “possible noncompliance of the United Nations Controller with United Nations financial rules and regulations” and the second one relating to “harassment and abuse of power.”


Judgments on the two appeals are unlikely to see the light before the end of 2024/2025.

In the meantime, the Secretary-General’s management team and legal counsels aim to tighten the leash on Mr. O’Mullane.


He will be reassigned, marginalized, hammered, pressured, and finally shown the door under yet another Non-Disclosure Agreement.


A staff member must satisfy three cumulative requirements for interim measures to be granted. As it happens, the staff member cannot even succeed in proving the first requirement, which is to demonstrate the particular urgency of the case.

Reviewing all the jurisprudence since 2010, the Tribunal has rarely granted a motion for interim measures simply because its requirements are unattainable for any staff member, and the threshold is too complex to reach.


The legal counsels know this and use it to the Secretary-General’s advantage.


In Mr. O’Mullane’s case, the Secretary-General’s legal counsels had only to draft one sentence to convince the duty judge to reject the motion for interim measures:

They referred to an email trail to show that internal restructuring discussions had already been taking place since at least late 2022 while the appeals of Mr. O’Mullane were filed in July 2023. In other words, the Judge said that

“the restructuring plan was initiated before the filing of the applications. The fact that the restructuring exercise, including the reassignment of the Applicant, has been under discussion for many months tends to show that this is a matter of self-inflicted urgency. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the Applicant has failed to show that this is a case of particular urgency.”

And so it goes.

The case is disposed of in less than one argument.
The urgency is self-inflicted!


As if all staff members do not know by now the maneuvering of senior management and their restructuring exercise. There is no case of an appeal filed before a restructuring exercise simply because the staff member does not have the deceitful, secretive restructuring plans that aim to eliminate them in the first place.


By the time Mr. O’Mullane proves the unlawfulness of this restructuring exercise and the retaliation and harassment against him, he will have been ousted or, at best, completely isolated.


Enough of disposing of dedicated senior staff like you would dispose of expired merchandise on shelves.


Mr. Secretary-General, your People are at the Core of the United Nations.
Without them, the United Nations will disintegrate.


The principles of adversarial fairness and transparency require that staff members demand that the Secretary-General immediately order an independent investigation to look into Mr. O’Mullane’s allegations of financial irregularities and the claims of harassment and retaliation against him.

Trumping Accountability in the United Nations: How the Secretary-General and a Failed Oversight Mechanism Keep Shielding Misconduct of Senior Appointees.

Silence in the face of the abuse of power.

You are a Director at the D-1 level.

You have served the United Nations with excellence, dedication, and passion for twenty years.

You just returned from maternity leave while still nursing your daughter.

You are assigned a new supervisor at the Assistant Secretary-General level.

You are harassed, bullied, and abused by your supervisor, the Assistant Secretary-General. 

image courtesy of NPR and The InCap

Drained, you go on sick leave. Sleepless nights, nightmares, burnout zone… 

You are immediately reassigned to a useless post.

You become marginalized, isolated, and ostracized. 

Not content with the marginalization, the Assistant Secretary-General, aided by the Under-Secretary-General, decide to abolish your post. 

So they make you an offer destined to guarantee your termination: an immediate reassignment, but this time, to a different continent. 

Newborn, family, home. You try hard but know you can’t, so you refuse.

You relapse, and your mental health suffers, so you take another sick leave. But no one cares. 

You ask for protection against retaliation, but the Ethics Officer reports to your harasser, the Assistant Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General and his Senior Management Team are so busy advocating for their duty of care, mental health, and well-being strategies that they decide to fire you while on sick leave with a three-day notice. 

So you fight back.

You file four appeals to the ILO Appeals Tribunal.

The Assistant-Secretary-General was under investigation.

You are informed that the Assistant-Secretary-General was nominated for promotion to the Under-Secretary-General level. You ask the Tribunal to request a vetting of the ASG for this position since she was under investigation.

The ILOAT says it’s none of their business. 

Journalists ask the Secretary-General’s Spokesman about the promotion under investigation. Still, the Spokesman proudly confirms that the Assistant-Secretary-General  “has the full backing of the Secretary-General, who very much appreciates her work, especially her leadership of the UN system-wide task force on combating sexual harassment.”

The process for appointments of USGs is still very much governed by the same lack of transparency, lack of merit, and shady deals between member states and the Secretary-General, who continues to violate Article 101 of the UN Charter, which requires him to ensure the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity in the employment of the staff.

And so it goes.

The Assistant-Secretary-General was promoted to the Under-Secretary -General for Management role. 

The former USG of UNAIDS, under investigation, issued an official press statement congratulating the ASG for her promotion to the new Under-Secretary-General for Management role and describing her as “a leader who gets results for people” adding that he will miss her “good humor and sound advice.”

In the meantime, you have been terminated.

You are fighting alone, suffering alone.

Your four appeals are still pending before the ILO Administrative Appeals.

Resorting to the system of administration of justice takes years. 

So when asked by journalists, your harasser (the former ASG) denies any allegation of harassment and bullying and refers to the thorough IOS investigation, which found all the allegations unsubstantiated.

Then, the truth starts to come out.

Slowly but surely…

First, the Report on the work of the Independent Expert Panel on the prevention of and response to harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse of power at the UNAIDS Secretariat finds that

The leaders, policies, and processes at UNAIDS have failed to prevent or properly respond to allegations of harassment including sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power in UNAIDS. The evidence before the Independent Expert Panel of a broken organisational culture is overwhelming.

UNAIDS is governed in a way that has produced a vacuum of accountability. The leadership of the UNAIDS Secretariat fails to accept responsibility for a culture of impunity becoming prevalent in the organisation, a culture that does not ensure a safe and dignified workplace for its staff, and one that fails to respect huma rights in line with law and United Nations values.”

The report further found that the Head of UNAIDS was responsible for fostering a cult of personality and patriarchal management and that he had “enabled a culture of harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power.” 

Following the independent expert panel’s report, the former USG of UNAIDS resigned immediately.

Then, the first ILOAT judgment (4240) was issued on 10 February 2020.

With respect to the improper reassignment decision, the Tribunal found that the reassignment caused the complainant “stress, distress, physical exhaustion, humiliation and adversely affected her career.”

A second ILOAT judgment (4241) was also issued on 10 February 2020.

Concerning the harassment, gaslighting, mobbing, and bullying allegations that the ASG subjected the complainant to and which, she had consistently denied in public statements, the ILOAT found that

 “the actions taken by or on the orders of the former ASG were liable to offend and humiliate the complainant. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, a reasonable person would have found the actions offensive and humiliating.” 

The former ASG ought reasonably to have known that those actions would have offended and humiliated the complainant, interfered with the complainant’s ability to carry out her work, and created a hostile work environment for her, thus constituting harassment in the terms set out in the Policy.”

The Tribunal also found a lack of fairness, objectivity, and impartiality during the investigation process because the IOS did not interview the witnesses whom the complainant suggested, and all the witnesses initially interviewed were staff under the supervision of her alleged harasser.

The Tribunal noted that the IOS’ report and recommendation to close the harassment case were flawed.

The ILOAT noted that the evidence presented was sufficient to permit the Tribunal to determine that the complainant’s harassment complaint was well founded and that the former ASG’s actions “created a hostile work environment” for the complainant.

What did the Secretary-General and his spokesman have to say about this?

Nothing.

Then, the third ILOAT judgment (4599) was issued on the 1st of February 2023.

The ILOAT found that the reassignment and termination processes were flawed and unlawful. 

The Tribunal compensated the complainant for the adverse effects that the unlawful reassignment and termination decisions had on her career, including but not limited to stress, distress, physical exhaustion and humiliation.

On the same day, the ILOAT issued its 4th and final judgment (4600).

The ILOAT examined the complainant’s claim to consider her illness as service incurred since it was directly caused by the harassment that the ASG subjected to her.

“The Tribunal found that the organization failed to ensure a healthy work environment and to protect the complainant’s health.

In the circumstances of this case, the organization breached its duty of care to the complainant when it rejected her claim for compensation for her service-incurred illness in the face of the overwhelming evidence, including four favourable medical reports, and its failure to ensure a healthy work environment to protect her health.”

First, you are reassigned, then you are ostracized, then you are demoted, then your post is abolished, then you are redeployed and ultimately, you are terminated.

This is the story of Sima Newell.

Where are the Secretary-General and his Spokesman? 

Nowhere to be seen.

The Secretary-General is the Chief Admin Officer of the United Nations.

His prerogative is to ensure that senior staff meet the highest standards of merit and accountability and that those who contravene the applicable governance norms must be held accountable.

And yet, he never does so.

The practice of the Secretary-General turning a blind eye to the misconduct of his senior staff is a grim reminder that the culture of impunity in the United Nations will continue to prevail in the name of higher political interests. 

Silence in the face of the abuse of power. 

Deafening silence. 

Where is the former Assistant Secretary-General?

Following her controversial promotion to the Under-Secretary-General for Management post in the UN Secretariat, she has subsequently joined the International Development Law Organization Director-General (IDLO) as its new Director-General.

In between, she is busy discussing with the Pope her shared commitment to advancing #justice #ruleoflaw #genderquality and supporting the most vulnerable.

Meanwhile, ahead of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly debate, the Secretary-General briefed the reporters and delivered another outstanding quote:

“This is not a time for posturing or positioning… Action is what the world needs now… People are looking to their leaders for a way out of this mess… If we want a future of peace and prosperity based on equity and solidarity, leaders have a special responsibility to achieve compromise in designing our common future for our common good”

Indeed. 

Endemic Coercion Schemes: #UNRWA’s savvy “Separation Agreements”

Consider this.

You are a long-term senior UN staff.

You are invited to a meeting with an Under-Secretary-General.

You are accused of serious misconduct and asked to resign.

You refuse.

A few hours later, you are presented with a termination letter effective the same day.

No investigation, due process, an opportunity to respond, right to submit exculpatory evidence, or disciplinary process. No, No, No. Nothing.

The next day, you are requested instead to sign a Separation Agreement” or face termination.

You have two hours left to decide,” as articulately and eloquently conveyed by the Director of Legal Affairs…

In French, there is a saying that perfectly depicts this scenario: it is called l’épée de Damoclès.” In the figurative speech, it means a sword is hanging above your head, waiting to chop it off. 

The UN coerces you to sign this agreement under duress. You will be left without a job, income, or medical insurance, and your family’s future is at stake. You reluctantly sign and commit not to file any claim against senior management. 

The Separation Agreement” miraculously rescinds the disciplinary measure and replaces it with a positive performance evaluation and a lengthy full-pay leave. Whatever happened to the serious misconduct? Whatever happened to accountability?

Savvy.

This is #UNRWA. This is the #UnitedNations.

But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you’re not.

Excerpts from the Judgment:

“This Separation Agreement was established in lieu of imposing a disciplinary measure and as a full and final settlement and release of any and all claims. UNRWA will provide the Staff Member with a positive performance evaluation by his supervisor(s) to enable him to seek alternative employment outside UNRWA. 

It is clear that the former CG and the former D/DLA (both representing the Agency), and the Applicant negotiated about the conditions of the Applicant’s separation, which resulted in the Separation Agreement signed. One of the agreed conditions was the issuance of a positive performance evaluation by the Agency. 

The Tribunal reiterates that the Standards of Conduct apply to all staff members within UNRWA.. Managers and supervisors in a position of leadership are supposed to serve as a role model and therefore have a special obligation to uphold the highest standards of conduct. These standards include qualities as honesty, truthfulness, impartiality and incorruptibility.

Supervisors have a duty to evaluate staff members’ performance carefully and honestly. Supervisors are not allowed to issue a better evaluation where a staff member resigns than he would have received had he stayed within the Agency. This would be unfair towards other staff members, but it would also be a risk for future employers, possibly including other United Nations entities.”

Now consider this.

You are a long-term UN staff.

You report misconduct against your supervisors.

You request protection against retaliation.

You testify in an investigation against them.

Senior Management wants you out.

They fabricate allegations against you.

You cooperate with the investigation.

You are not provided the investigation report.

You are not provided any evidence against you.

The due process is completed.

You are invited to a meeting to finalize the disciplinary process.

You are informed by the USG of your immediate termination for serious misconduct in agreement with the Director of Legal Affairs and Director of Human Resources.

Less than a minute after, you are presented by the same USG and a WITNESS with a blackmail and bribery offer of resignation instead of termination, with an excellent performance evaluation report and a highly enticing financial package.

But there is one condition: you must sign an NDA agreeing not to file any claims against him or his Directors. Whatever happened to the serious misconduct?

Savvy.

This is #UNRWA. This is the #UnitedNations.

Excerpts from the Judgment:

“In the present case, it is apparent that the former CG offered the Applicant the option of resigning and receiving a positive recommendation instead of being terminated. If substantiated, such a practice is a blatant violation of the UN’s core values. If a staff member has committed serious misconduct, he/she must be separated from the Agency in accordance with the Agency’s regulatory framework. Under no circumstances should this staff member be provided with a positive recommendation, thus allowing him/her to pursue his/her international career within the United Nations system.”

You refuse.

You are terminated.

You appeal.

You win.

Twice.

But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you’re not.

Now consider also this.

You are accused of serious misconduct.

You fully cooperate with the investigation.

You patiently await the due process letter.

It doesn’t come.

No opportunity to respond, No right to submit exculpatory evidence, No disciplinary process, No due process, No, No, No. Nothing.

One exception: senior Management suddenly decides to place a note in your official status file, unilaterally concluding that you are guilty without giving you the inherent right to defend yourself and to complete the proper disciplinary process.

Confidential contents

Savvy.

This is #UNRWA. This is the #UnitedNations.

You appeal.

You are prevented from pursuing gainful employment due to the note to the file.

You fight.

You win.

But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you are not.

Excerpts from the Judgment:

“It is uncontested that the Applicant was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct and the findings of the investigation. This failure is an obvious breach of the Applicant’s due process rights. Furthermore, the UNAT consistently held that placing such communications in an OSF has the direct legal consequence that it impacts future careers prospects of the staff member.

The Agency’s agreement to issue positive performance evaluations while the investigation was not completed was an act that was not in compliance with the Standards of Conduct.

The Tribunal finds that obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member. Furthermore, as considered above, the said conditions were not in compliance with the UNRWA and UN regulatory framework. 

The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal. “

The authors and advocates of these illegal “Separation Agreements” are still working for international organizations, and some are still with UNRWA. No one was held accountable.

There are hundreds more unlawful “Separation Agreements” coercing staff to leave under duress. The practice is ongoing in the #UnitedNations.

One senior official is awaiting his return to a prominent position in an international organization. A Director of Legal Affairs is occupying a leading post in the legal department of an international organization. The Director of Human resources is still with UNRWA.

You are out. They’re still in.

Accountability. Zero.

REMINDER.

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person…

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained….

Settlement Agreements, Non-Disclosure Agreements, Agreed Terminations, and Separation Agreements in the United Nations.

The UN has all that it takes: Ethics Offices, an Ombudsman, numerous policies, SGBs, ST/Ais addressing unsatisfactory conduct, investigations, discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority, a decentralized system of administration of justice, a code of conduct, Oath of Office and above all its Charter:

“We The People Of The United Nations Determined

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”

But do its senior managers have morality and ethics?

This post looks closely at Settlement Agreements, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), Agreed Terminations, and Separation Agreements in the United Nations. Sophisticated designations and expressions are all used with the same ultimate goal:

Deter staff from speaking up and cooperating with audits and investigations, employ the existing disparity in the status of power to intimidate staff and coerce them into forced resignations, and offer unjustified financial incentives (i.e., bribery) to lure staff and silence them in return for them signing agreements that prevent them from legally mentioning or pursuing any claim of wrongdoing and misconduct against the senior officials.

Instead of encouraging a safe working environment where staff can report inappropriate behavior without fear of retaliation, these agreements promote an unethical environment.

The Organization uses these agreements for four reasons, the last one being the most innovative as well as representing a direct breach of the UN’s rules and regulations:

  • Retaliate against a staff member who reported wrongdoing and coerce them into a forced separation signing the agreement, thus limiting the scope of future reporting or limiting the extent of the damage to an organization’s reputation;
  • Use artificial restructuring reasons to force staff into the coerced separation or face an often unlawful and arbitrary performance management process;
  • Quietly and diplomatically ask senior officials to leave the organization instead of facing the usual disciplinary process;
  • Strangely and, as of recently, use agreed termination for staff about to retire to reward them for their loyalty to senior managers.

In 2020, Action Against Prohibited Conduct reported that “one certain outcome of the use of NDAs in the UN was that – it entrenches the culture of silence that has protected and propagated the organizational culture of loyalty above all else. The UN and other international organizations are far from placing an embargo on such settlements.”

Due to their confidential nature, there is little access to these agreements, and thus the practice remains largely unchallenged. However, aborted or unsuccessful attempts are often described in UNDT/UNAT  and ILOAT judgments. The examples and excerpts below highlight the widespread unethical practices in various UN and other international organizations.

In ILOAT No. 4072, 127th Session, the Judgment read:

“The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed as part of the implementation of the “consolidated transformation plan.” The complainant, who was employed under a permanent contract was called to an individual meeting during which he was invited to sign a Mutually Agreed and he would forgo any right of appeal under the threat of being dismissed without compensation for unsatisfactory performance if he did not sign the separation agreement. The Tribunal notes the manifest unlawfulness of the conditions in which the signature of the separation agreement was obtained.”

In Mmata UNDT/2010/053, the Judgment read:

“When UNICEF failed to secure his agreement to the termination of his contract by consent, pressure was applied to him to force a decision to accept severance terms by mentioning that the incident with his UNON identity card could be used against him as a charge of misconduct. “

In Kaddoura UNRWA/DT/2020/28, the Judgment read:

“The former CG caused her severe prejudice when he presented her with an offer of blackmail and bribery to coerce her into resigning; In the present case, it is apparent that the former CG offered the Applicant the option of resigning and receiving a positive recommendation instead of being terminated. If substantiated, such a practice is a blatant violation of the UN’s core values.”

In ILOAT Judgment No. 3750, 123rd Session, the Judgment read:

“By leading the complainant to believe that she had underperformed, the Global Fund abused its authority and put the complainant under unlawful pressure, which vitiated her consent in signing the separation agreement, which she did under the false impression that she had underperformed. As the offer of a PIP was unlawful, the separation agreement signed by the complainant is null and void on the grounds that she signed it under duress.”

In Soliman UNRWA/DT/2017/007, the Judgment read:

“it is unacceptable that a supervisor would agree to modify a mid-term review, which had already been submitted to the Department of Human Resources, and would promise to give a false review of the staff member’s performance to a future potential employer. An international civil servant could always apply and be selected for another post within the UN system. However, it would be against the interests of the UN if a staff member were to be selected to a post on the basis of an evaluation from a previous employer, which does not reflect the reality of the staff member’s performance.”

But the most egregious use of termination and settlement agreements are the ones that the Secretary-General uses to politely and discreetly ask senior officials to resign instead of imposing the same disciplinary threshold under chapter X of the rules, which applies to the rest of the staff.

The SG’s official spokesperson frequently uses the subtle expression “separated from the organization” in reference to senior officials fired. But were these senior officials actually fired? For the external audience, maybe. However, UN staff with access to HR data know they were not. They signed settlement agreements with the SG’s office.

The SG’s office has consistently refused to disclose the disciplinary measures applied to senior officials. These measures must be made equally public, similar to the Tribunal’s judgments, in the interest of transparency and accountability. Senior officials are not a separate staff category and are subject to the same regulations and rules.

Recently, a most ludicrous use of agreed termination has transpired in one of the organizations as reported in the OIOS audit of ESCWA report 2022/88 para 38, whereby the organization offered to staff who were about to retire a lucrative termination agreement package and where there were no criteria for the staff identified to have received such a package. 

“(b) agreed termination

ESCWA identified staff for separation on early retirement and offered agreed terminations to 13 staff members who were nearing retirement. However, there were no documented criteria for identifying candidates for termination and there was a risk that the process could be viewed as lacking objectivity.”

There goes the accountability framework for funds received from donors and member states.

The use of termination agreements in the UN and other international organizations contradicts the principles and core values the UN advocates for in its mandates.

“We The People Of The United Nations Determined

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”

Intimidation and Harassment

#Intimidation and #Harassment are tools that managers in #internationalorganizations frequently use to dissuade staff from asserting their rights and obligations.

#Intimidation and #Harassment are tools that managers in #internationalorganizations frequently use to dissuade staff from asserting their rights and obligations.

When the new system of administration of justice in the #UnitedNations was established in 2010, it was for the purpose of disposing of formal disputes in a  transparent and decentralized system consistent with the relevant rules of international law and the principles of rule of law and due process to ensure respect for the rights and obligations of staff members and the #accountability of managers and staff members alike (GA/63/253).

Since 2010, not one manager was held accountable in cases where the UN Tribunals made decisions upholding the referral for accountability.

Worse, instead of being the driving force for policy reforms and organizational culture in the #UnitedNations, the system of administration of justice is now essentially a last minute deterrence strategy tool.

#Intimidation and #Harassment are tools that managers in #internationalorganizations frequently use to dissuade staff from asserting their rights and obligations.

In the recent order issued by the UNDT for a planned non-extension of a staff member’s contract, the UNDT (though rendering the management evaluation request moot) eloquently articulated the deficiencies of management’s practices in this regard.

For those interested, excerpt below and order attached.

“In this connection, the Tribunal wishes to recall that the Administration has a general duty to act fairly, justly and transparently in its dealings with its staff.  A good administrative practice requires that a notice of non-extension be given sufficiently in advance of the expiry of the appointment….a staff member inquiring about extension of the appointment deserves an answer. 

The conduct of the Administration in this case is neither fair nor transparent.

Since 28 November 2022, at the latest, the Administration clearly implied that the Applicant’s appointment would not be extended. It is obvious that MINUSMA only moved to act when the Applicant filed a management evaluation request. This, it should be noted, appears to be a modus operandi of MINUSMA toward staff members who file complaints against the management..”

#cultureofimpunity #management #law #administrationofjustice