UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the former staff member’s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.
Regarding the disciplinary measure, the UNAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian coordination systems, aid agencies, and humanitarian aid workers – subjects central to the purpose, activities, and interests of the United Nations, and, specifically, OCHA. It found that her public statements breached her duty to refrain from using information gained through her official functions for private gain. It held that some of her posts called into question her loyalty, impartiality, and responsibility to the Organization, thereby undermining her status as an international civil servant and adversely affecting the interests of the Organization.
The UNAT found that her explicit criticisms of humanitarian aid and its presence on the continent, along with her repeated calls for African nations to reject or question such aid, impugned the reputation of the Organization and jeopardized the safety of humanitarian workers. It noted that adding a personal-views disclaimer on LinkedIn did not absolve her of the duty to act with tact, discretion, and good judgment.
Finally, the UNAT found that the sanction imposed was proportionate and that her due process rights were respected.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2024/089.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) contested the decisions of the Administration: i) to place her on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP); ii) regarding her taking a position in New York; and iii) to impose on her the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with a 25 per cent termination indemnity.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2024/089, the UNDT dismissed the former staff member’s application, finding that: i) the decisions to place her on ALWP and regarding her taking a position in New York were not receivable; and ii) the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeals process and a prerequisite to invoke the UNDT’s jurisdiction.
In assessing whether social media engagements constitute outside activities amounting to misconduct, it must be shown that: i) the staff member issued public statements, submitted articles for electronic dissemination, accepted speaking engagements or took part in radio or television productions relating to the purpose, activities or interests of the United Nations; ii) they failed to seek prior authorization from the Administration; and iii) their publications adversely affected their official duties or the interests of the Organization.
The determination of whether outside activities align with the interests or purpose of the United Nations is the prerogative of the Organization.
There is a duty of discretion imposed on international civil servants, which ensures a balance between their fundamental freedom of expression and the due respect and protection of the ultimate interests of the Organization. While personal views remain inviolate, international civil servants do not enjoy the same freedom as private persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters. They should ensure that their views do not adversely affect their official duties or the interests of the United Nations. Conduct on social media is not exempt from these standards, even where a disclaimer is used.
The Secretary-General has broad discretion in imposing disciplinary sanctions and due deference must be given to his decisions on sanction.
Only substantial procedural irregularities can render a disciplinary sanction unlawful.
Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established.