My account

We really care, but first… we will retraumatize you

Under Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute and Article 9 (1) (b) of the UNAT Statute, the Tribunals can order what we know in the common law system as compensation for “non-pecuniary loss” or what we recognize in the UN as compensation for “moral damages.” Moral damages are distinct from in-lieu compensation. 

Moral Damages compensate the Applicant for various causes such as mental and physical suffering, depression and anxiety, mental anguish, loss of reputation, humiliation…

In Judgment UNDT/2015/053, the Tribunal recognized that

“moral damages are not solely a question about money but a warning in the field of employment law to employers on how to treat people.”

Now, when the Tribunal establishes an unlawful decision and vindicates a staff member, one would think that the staff is automatically entitled to compensation for Moral Damages.

Think again.

Before 2014, staff members provided their testimonies directly to the Tribunal, describing at length their suffering. The Tribunal, satisfied with the individual testimonies, proceeded to award compensation for moral damages.

In 2014, the Secretary-General proposed to the GA, and the GA approved significant amendments to the UNDT and the UNAT statutes. The subtle but significant changes introduced the expression “supported by evidence” after “compensation for harm” in both Statutes.

But what does this mean for the mentally tortured staff, who not only found themselves without a job, perhaps also with a torn-apart family but also unable to regain their mental strength to secure financial independence again?

In short, since 2014, a staff member’s testimony alone is no longer considered sufficient evidence of harm, warranting compensation for moral damages. The staff members are now required to provide medical, psychological, and even psychiatric reports to establish the direct causal link between the harm, stress, or anxiety caused to them and the breach of their substantive or procedural rights.

There goes another layer of humiliation, invasion of privacy, traumatization, amplified anxiety…you name it. The reference to the staff member’s name and the various psychological problems they’re suffering from is also explicitly mentioned in the judgments, which are public documents. 

How can this scenario possibly contribute, in any way, to restoring the mental health of these staff and the damage already inflicted upon them?

To add insult to injury, the UNDT/UNAT compensation for moral damages are paltry sums compared to what the ILO Tribunal awards to staff falling under their jurisdiction.

If the Secretary-General is genuinely concerned with the mental health and well-being of the staff, perhaps he can start by making concrete proposals to amend the UNDT/UNAT statute and revert to the former policy, demonstrating a more compassionate and caring stance instead of the current one which only contributes to exacerbating the status of the staff members well-being and mental health issues.

Nadine Kaddoura

A 12 year Review of Duty of Care, Mental Health and Moral Damages in the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals

The UN doesn’t need another articulately well drafted strategy to tick the box and satisfy the requirements of member states and donors at large. We certainly do not need a strategy to tell us to take care of each other. What we desperately need is #accountability.

The #UnitedNations workplace mental health and well-being strategy launched in October 2018, was designed to optimize the psychological health of staff, improve organizational capacities to protect #mentalhealth and prevent mental health issues in the workplace.

The strategy followed the global 2015 United Nations staff well-being survey, according to which approximately 50 % of UN staff reported symptoms consistent with mental health conditions.

The strategy followed the global 2015 United Nations staff well-being survey, according to which approximately 50 % of UN staff reported symptoms consistent with mental health conditions.

50%. That is half of the workforce of the UN.

In reality, this number is much higher. According to the survey and the five year strategy, there were four main reasons for the poor mental health of staff: 

·      The number of years worked with the UN.
·      Exposure to traumatizing events in the previous 12 months.
·      Low job satisfaction, perceived incivility and conflict in the workplace
·      Low levels of help-seeking or receiving any mental health services.

Unsurprisingly, nowhere to be seen were the unlawful decisions taken by senior managers which were the root cause of most, if not all mental health issues or the fact that the concept of #accountability was persistently infringed upon in the Organization, which was the root cause of the stark increase of mental health findings in the survey.

The UNDT and UNAT judgments issued between 2009 and 2022 beg to differ. In the attached document, the list of all Judgments awarding moral damages due to moral harm inflicted upon the staff member’s emotional well-being paints a grim picture of the existing #toxicworkenvironment and the failure of the Organization to hold ANY senior manager accountable for their erroneous and harmful decisions. Decisions that impacted on every staff member’s “Quality of Life”.

At the end of the document is a compilation of the UNDT’s own bleak words referring to the various mental health issues inflicted upon these staff members. Words that were repeated in every judgment, session after session, year after year from 2009 to 2022. Read them slowly. Feel the pain, the sadness and the scariness of what these staff went through.

The UN doesn’t need another articulately well drafted strategy to tick the box and satisfy the requirements of member states and donors at large. We certainly do not need a strategy to tell us to take care of each other. What we desperately need is #accountability.

Start by holding these managers accountable. That’s the only element of deterrence that will drastically improve the work environment and the mental and physical well- being of the staff members. 

To conclude with an extract from a staff member’s testimony who was left with an “altered life drastically”. What the UN needs is drastic measures to uphold #accountability. Nothing less.

#UnitedNations#DutyofCare#MentalHealthMatters#Accountability

DutyofcareUNDownload

On Duty of Care and Mental Health in the United Nations

#stress, #anxiety, emotionalsuffering, neglected, #harm to reputation, disrespect, distress, uncertainty, emotional injury, frustration, disappointment, humiliation, unfair treatment, anguish, loss of self-esteem, diminished, insecurity, stigma, shock, prejudice, unwell, moral injury, obstruction, #toxicworkenvironment, damage, hardship, mental stress, suffering, mistreatment, isolation from professional life, embarrassment, illness, impairment to living conditions, belittled, #depression, harm to well-being, deterioration of health, psychological harm, hostile and offensive work environment, significant upheaval in life, stymieing of career progression, mental anguish, nervous breakdown, health suffering, #harassment, extreme emotional distress and physical harm, devastation, unfairness, severe distress and public humiliation, injustices, mental suffering, #mentalhealth, tremendous mental suffering, unable to sleep, breakup of relationship, traumatized and upset, psychological suffering, quality of life affected, headaches, loss of morale, sense of injustice, low self-worth, blocked, demoted, object of mockery, dismissed, hasty removal, loss of job security, precarious, detrimental impact on situation and well-being, trouble sleeping, unwell, neglect, Damocles sword hanging on head, inhumane, significant damage to health, devastating effect on personal and financial affairs, vulnerable situation, financial insecurity, sense of unfairness and lack of care, sorrow, betrayal, disrespectful treatment, injury to dignity, damage to personal and professional standing, demoralized, loss of faith in justice, easily irritable, withdrawn and despondent with the world, pariah, isolated, worry, diminished quality of life, ruined life, chest pain, insomnia, stomach ache,  pressure, infringement of dignitas, depressive mood, #workplacebullying, somatization disorder, hair loss, antidepressant medications, crying, marginalization, abject sadness, severe psychological pathologies and related health issues, deterioration of mental health, weight loss, reflux indigestion, post-traumatic stress disorder (#PTSD), symptoms of dissociation, derealization, vertigo, recurrent nightmares impairing sleep, retraumatization, degrading conditions of work, mixed anxiety-depressive disorder, insidious and repeated harassment and bullying, oppressed, deleterious atmosphere, negative impact in family, burnout, fear at the idea of returning to work; frequent bouts of crying, feelings of devaluation and guilt, physical and mental exhaustion, trouble concentrating and loss of memory, feelings of guilt and powerlessness vis-à-vis colleagues, social withdrawal, sentiments of #injustice and powerlessness, altered life, anger, pounding heartbeat….

What do these words have in common?

Watch this space next for a post on #dutyofcare and #mentalhealth in the United Nations.

#unitednations #mentalhealth #accountability #dutyofcare

You Are Not Protected

Most of the time, retaliation is exacerbated during the investigative process. In the meantime, perpetrators are free to act according to their whims. Not surprisingly, by the time an investigation is launched by OIOS, the perpetrator most often a senior official, resigns.



On #ProtectionfromRetaliation #Impartiality and #Accountability

Since its establishment in 2006, the UN #Ethics Office failed to protect staff from retaliation for reporting misconduct or for cooperating with audits/investigations. Protection against retaliation is one of the key functions of the Ethics’ Office. The root cause of this failure can be traced to the existing structural and organizational deficiencies of many inter-dependent #UnitedNations entities.

Firstly, the head of the Ethics Office is appointed by the Secretary-General and is accountable to the SG. Not impartial and not independent. Secondly, at its best, the Ethics Office can make a finding of prima-facie case of retaliation, however, it does not have any power to investigate. The only power it has is to refer the case to OIOS for investigation. 

Turning to OIOS. The USG of OIOS is appointed by the SG and is also accountable to the SG. Not impartial and not independent. Normally, OIOS investigations take about a year or two. Thirdly and more importantly, when and if OIOS establishes retaliation, it  can simply refer the case to the Office of Human Resources, which will ultimately make a decision of whether or not to initiate the appropriate disciplinary process. 

Procedural details aside, let’s take a closer look at what this means for your everyday international civil servant. 

Though staff are given the option for interim protection measures, they are rarely protected.

Worse, most of the time, retaliation is exacerbated during the investigative process. In the meantime, perpetrators are free to act according to their whims. Not surprisingly, by the time an investigation is launched by OIOS, the perpetrator most often a senior official, resigns.

There goes your #accountability framework.

Nowhere is this more dismayingly reflected than in UNAT’s judgments this week in the case of Fosse No. 2022-UNAT-1310 and No. 2022-UNAT-1305.

“Ms. Fosse’s appeal raises an increasingly common issue of what happens to such complaints when, as occurs not infrequently, the person complained against leaves the Organisation following the making of a complaint but before its conclusion.”

The systemic failures of the principle of good governance and accountability and the role of the Ethics Office are accurately depicted in paras 21 and 22 of Judgment 1305.

“21. The Ethics Office concluded that retaliation had not been established. It noted moreover that the Executive Secretary had resigned and … there was no continued need for the interim protective measures..”

“22. The Ethics Office, however, recorded that…this did not mean that no misconduct had occurred; nor did it condone the behaviour of the Executive Secretary. It therefore recommended to the Secretary-General that he consider placing a note on the official status file of the ES indicating that she separated from service during a retaliation investigation… “



#UnitedNations #internationalorganizations

Your document has finished loading

Click to access 2022-UNAT-1310.pdf

Twelve years of Referral for Accountability in the UNAT

The overarching principles of the UN are #transparency , #accountability and good #governance. Unfortunately, none of these principles are followed when it comes to appeals. The UN does not make publicly available any information regarding the accountability measures taken. We know there were none taken. Donors, member states and other stakeholders must demand the UN make such information public for transparency and accountability reasons. 

The #UnitedNations GA established the system of administration of justice in 2010 to ensure respect for the rights and obligations of staff members and the #accountability of managers and staff members alike. 

Article 10 (8) of the Statute of the UN Appeals Tribunal gives it the right to refer appropriate cases to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce #accountability. 

For a referral for accountability to be made, it must meet  “the high standard of personal wrongful action”. In other words, the official who made the unlawful decision had a personal intention to harm a staff member. In the 12 years of the existence of the internal justice system, the UNAT issued 2368 judgments out of which, only 9 met the threshold of “personal wrongful action” in which case UNAT upheld the referral for accountability. This means a meager 0,38% of the totality of staff members’ appeals since 2010 were referred for accountability. 

0,38%. This number speaks for itself.

Numbers aside, let’s turn to more consequential matters.

First, both the UNDT/UNAT do not have any inherent power to implement, enforce or follow-up on accountability measures taken by the Secretary-General. The referral constitutes a communication from the Tribunal to the Secretary-General, and the Secretary-General is vested with the discretionary power to determine the appropriate course of action to adopt. Normally, this should entail an investigation into the referred official with disciplinary measures ensuing. 

An appropriate course of action does not entail allowing a senior official to resign, or a golden check to be bestowed upon them, or to reassign them to a different duty station. And most certainly, it does not entail a promotion.

In the attached, in 9 cases the referral was upheld by the UNAT. In one case, it was reversed despite the overwhelming evidence and the presence of a witness. In all cases, there were no measures taken against these officials. Worse, many of them were promoted to Regional Director positions, ASGs and USGs. Others were discreetly allowed to leave without any pecuniary loss or even a note in their files barring them from pursuing their career in the humanitarian aid and development field.

The overarching principles of the UN are #transparency , #accountability and good #governance. Unfortunately, none of these principles are followed when it comes to appeals. The UN does not make publicly available any information regarding the accountability measures taken. We know there were none taken. Donors, member states and other stakeholders must demand the UN make such information public for transparency and accountability reasons. 

What do you think must be done for the UNDT/UNAT to become independent and effective bodies of internal justice in the UN?

Referral-for-Accountability-in-the-UN-5Download

On Impropriety in Recruitment and Selection Processes, Misrepresentation and Referral for Accountability .

What is the entire point of administration of justice in the UN if referrals for accountability are not implemented? and what is the role of member states, donors and other stakeholders?

The large number of appeals filed in #internationalorganizations jurisdictions in cases of recruitment and selection speaks volume about the dissatisfaction of staff with the lack of #transparency and #fairness in recruitment processes. 

These appeals fail for a simple reason: for management to win, they are required by the Tribunal to minimally show that “…a candidate was given a full and fair consideration…then the presumption of law that official acts have been regularly performed stands satisfied.”   

In more simple terms, if a candidate was shortlisted and interviewed, most of the time, it is more than enough to prove that the process was regular (even when most of us know that it was not). 

What happens then?

Nothing.

Let us leave aside our frustration with this minimal legal requirement for a while and concentrate on a more compelling scenario:

What happens when a staff member was able to prove that the entire process was not only irregular but also a total fraud? What are the legal implications when other candidates misrepresent their qualifications on official application forms? 

And most unusually, what happens when a Director of Human Resources who is entrusted with the highest responsibility of safeguarding the integrity of the recruitment process and compliance with fairness and transparency, is the one who authorized, paved the way, certified and approved such a process? 

Well, strangely enough, also nothing.

In a judgment issued this week by the #UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, the Judge held the following:

“The Director of Human Resources (DHR) is ex officio member of the ACHR (Appointment/CR bodies), which discussed the Selected Candidate’s failure to meet the required qualifications at length, including that she had never served in the post of Investigator… The Tribunal thus finds that the DHR must have known that the Selected Candidate had misrepresented her qualifications. However, he not only failed to take steps to disqualify her from the recruitment process,he took the extraordinary measure of recommending her appointment to the Senior Field Investigator post at the Grade 17 level.” (equivalent to P-3).

The Tribunal cannot but conclude that the Director of Human Resources failed to identity the wrongly composed interview panel and recommended for appointment a candidate who had misrepresented her qualifications. 

Considering the serious nature of the flaws in this selection process…the case will be referred to the Commissioner General for accountability..”

What is the entire point of administration of justice in the UN if referrals for accountability are not implemented? and what is the role of member states, donors and other stakeholders?

Watch this space next with a follow-up post on implementation of referrals for #accountability based on real data from the UN.

On Reassignment, Restructuring and Abolition of Posts

The Organisation almost always holds most, if not all, of the information and therefore the evidence relevant to the grounds for its decision. At best, the staff member holds relatively little. The information power imbalance is pronounced.

It is established jurisprudence that an international organization has the right to restructure its departments and abolish posts during the process. However such processes are frequently undermined by unfairness and lack of transparency with staff. There are, of course, departments and units that have genuine organizational and operational needs to restructure and many succeed in transforming their businesses.

Others are not so well-versed.

We know the drill by now: a staff is problematic, underperforming, not loyal, deadwood, not wanted, too cooperative with staff union, too uncooperative with management… and the list goes on..

Administrative issuances, rules and regulations are not helpful tools for management in this respect. The alternative course of question is almost always recourse to a consultant, review of structure (also sometimes referred to as restructuring, realignment, streamlining of resources, improved approach of conducting business, etc…) which in turn leads to reassignment and/or abolishment of post and most often termination of contracts.

This leads to a flurry of disgruntled staff, low morale and the inevitable lengthy and draining process of appeals. 

To the sorrow of many and the content of others, those appeals frequently fail for want or proof: meaning staff are unable to provide the applicable evidentiary standard supporting their appeal and claims, because they have very little information available to them with respect to the irregularity of the decision. Apart from senior management and senior HR staff, very few staff have access to HR analytics, budget documents, GA draft propositions, dates of approval…

The Organisation almost always holds most, if not all, of the information and therefore the evidence relevant to the grounds for its decision. At best, the staff member holds relatively little. The information power imbalance is pronounced.

On the applicable evidentiary standard, Judge Graeme Colgan, in one of the cases, took time to detail his criticism of the application of the presumption of regularity standard, in cases of abolition of posts:

“… The principles at issue include the “presumption of regularity” of administrative decisions; the imposition of an onus of proof resting on an affected staff member of establishing irregularity or other unlawfulness once the Organisation has met a very low threshold of regularity….. In such situations, the Organisation almost always holds most, if not all, of the information and therefore the evidence relevant to the grounds for its decision. At best, the staff member holds relatively little. The information power imbalance is pronounced. Yet the jurisprudence expects the staff member to make out a case to a high standard against the Organisation that holds unilaterally the relevant information and may naturally be reluctant to divulge it all. It is little wonder that such cases fail for want of proof. 

It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove what one may be unaware of”.

Some things need to be changed and it’s certainly not the staff members. 

IchaDownload

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

Nadine Kaddoura

1670848186341-1Download