State of denial: the UN and the protection of its whistleblowers

Click here to read this @ UN Justice: http://unjustice.org/news121.htm

7 December 2012

UNJustice has learned with grave concern and sense of shock that the UN Secretary-General, through the UN Legal Counsel, H.E. Ms. Patricia O’Brien, has just lodged a cross-appeal to the United Nations Appeal Tribunal (UNAT) seeking to have 16 paragraphs (numbers 60-76) of a United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) ruling redacted. On 12 July 2012, a landmark UNDT ruling suggested that former UN staffer Ms. Vesna Dzuverovic suffered retaliation and “RECOMMEND[ed her case] to the Secretary-General for sympathetic review with a view to bringing substantive justice and closure to it” [para. 74 UNDT/2012/105, original emphasis].

The UNDT also tried to send a very important message to the Secretary-General about the importance of effectively upholding the UN whistleblowing policy, noting that, exceptionally in this case:

“This recommendation is made bearing in mind the special measures that have been put in place with regards to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs, professional lives and livelihoods by courageously seeking to expose wrong-doings within the Organization.

The United Nations, being the foremost international Organization for setting standards for governments and other organizations, needs to review the case of this Applicant as this will serve not only the ends of justice but also to reassure whistleblowers that they are indeed protected” [paras. 75 and 76 UNDT/2012/105].

 

Following these findings, on 7 September 2012, Ms. Dzuverovic wrote to the Secretary-General pleading for the UNDT recommendation to be accepted and to be provided with a remedy. However, her letter received no reply and she had no option but to reiterate her request through a formal appeal to the UNAT.

The position of the Secretary-General is incomprehensible. The UN whistleblowing policy is a major element of the UN reform agenda and a first step in preventing retaliation is its recognition.

Last year, on 14 October 2011, following a film screening of "The Whistleblower" at the U.N. Headquarters, the Secretary-General declared that “[the film] underscores how important it is to speak out against abuse or injustice... Those who do so, in good faith, must not be punished ... We need to promote a culture in which people feel free and obliged to raise their voices in the face of wrongdoing and abuse."

Surprisingly, the cross-appeal now lodged by the Secretary-General constitutes an alarming backtracking of the UN whistleblowing policy which goes exactly in the opposite direction of the UNDT recommendation, sending the wrong message that protection of UN whistleblowers should not exist and impunity should be offered to all those who may choose to victimise or retaliate against fellow UN colleagues who have made credible allegations of misconduct.

OHCHR former staffer should not be paying the price for an unchecked “Post Regularization Exercise”

Click here for this in full @ UN Justice: http://www.unjustice.org/frontpage22.htm

29 October 2012

The story of Mr. Muratore, a former professional staffer of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights  – OHCHR -  is a great testament to the continuing controversy of the interconnection of current ineffective accountability mechanisms for oversight of the UN and the limitations of the UN judiciary to provide legal remedies that are deemed necessary. 

 

Rated as belonging to the best 2% of UN staff in 2003, Mr. Muratore lost his job in 2006 when he complained through UN internal control channels about some 140 professional posts which had been attributed by OHCHR to candidates who would have not been selected had the proper rules been followed during a recruitment scheme called “Post Regularization Exercise”. 

Mr. Muratore told UNJustice that “the fraud was organized in 2005 – 2006 by a group of UN employees, and its negative financial implications continue to date: as result, at the very least approximately USD 135 million of public funds were embezzled. It all started when OHCHR, UNOG (the UN Office in Geneva), and UN-OHRM (the UN Office for Human Resources Management) organized the so-called OHCHR Post Regularization Exercise, whereby 132 regular professional posts at P3, P4 and P5 levels were assigned in derogation to applicable UN recruitment rules and procedures.  

Such derogation treated temporary staff members holding Geneva OHCHR contracts older than November 30, 2003 as «internal candidates», contrary to applicable UN rules. This was on the basis of an ad hoc «agreement between OHCHR and OHRM», as some senior OHCHR officials explained to Geneva staff.

Shortly after the conclusion of the Post Regularization Exercise, in April 2006, I learned from the OHCHR Chair of the Steering Committee on post regularization, that the above-mentioned agreement did not exist. Therefore, the whole exercise was illegal. I reported the facts the moment I learned of them to the then Deputy High Commissioner; I also wrote to the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit, to the United Nations Office for Internal Oversight, to the UN Ethics Office and to the UN Ombudsman. This was to no avail, as they refused to intervene.  

My reports led only to increasing forms of retaliation against me. I was even intimidated by a staff member who told me very bluntly that my chances of continuing my career at OHCHR were close to zero, as I was «perceived as speaking too much». A few weeks later, in fact, my contract was brought to an end, despite my excellent past professional evaluations in the UN system, the availability of funds for the post I occupied, and the existence of administrative promises of renewal”. 

Six years later, Mr. Muratore eventually obtained a favourable judgment by the UNDT, which declared that "the regularization exercise was illegal" and ruled that he had “suffered significant material damage, as well as a high degree of moral damage.” Moreover, the court found that “there was a bias against” him and he was “deprived of a very real chance of obtaining continuing employment” [UNDT/2011/129]. 

However, despite awarding him financial compensation  – a comparatively petty sum of seven months’ net base salary -  the UNDT didn’t concern itself with the effects of an unlawful decision which is still in place, and which according to Mr. Muratore “is wasting international taxpayers’ money at the appalling rate of at least USD 20 million per year”. Furthermore, neither has the tribunal ordered his reinstatement as Human Rights Officer. 

 

The UN views its whistleblower protection policy as one of its most important internal reform programmes but, like the majority of those persons who have contacted UNJustice, Mr. Muratore explained that his career was destroyed when he blew the whistle on the Organization and that this has created insurmountable difficulties and unwarranted privations also for his family. Under the circumstances, Muratore’s battle for justice and dignity is far from over. 

“I am above all seeking my rehabilitation and reinstatement as Human Rights Officer,”  he said to UNJustice. “I have reported several violations of the rules and of my human rights, I have lost my job because of that. Now UNDT has ruled that I was right, but I have not got my job back and those who violated the rules are still there. Is this acceptable at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights? Well, it seems it is, but it shouldn't be tolerated in my view.” 

After the UNAT recently reaffirmed the UNDT judgment [UNAT/2012/245], Muratore drew his concern to the attention of the head of his former agency, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay. She has not replied yet. 

The hope is that the High Commissioner will give priority consideration in other applications for OHCHR posts to Mr. Muratore, who has not been selected again for the various UN jobs for which he has applied. The OHCHR should also commence as a matter of urgency an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation into all aspects of this “Post Regularization Exercise”, particularly to ensure that public resources are put to the  best possible use during the economic crisis that has affected the world community.

UNJustice notes that during the past few years the General Assembly has repeatedly called on the Secretary-General to report on measures in place to provide for the accountability of officials who cause financial loss to the Organization, including recovery action, as well as actions taken to enforce such accountability. These laudable initiatives risk becoming meaningless since it is widely believed that the accountability of UN officials too often remains in the realm of “the broad discretion of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters”  – as it is defined the current UN Secretariat work context, and is not real or substantial. 

UNJustice is also very concerned about the well-being of those men and women who risk their professional lives and livelihoods by seeking to expose wrongdoing within the Organization, for which they should be commended, not punished. UNJustice believes that the opportunity to ensure proper remedies are provided for Mr. Muratore, and to other innocent persons when their fundamental rights are violated by the administrative authority of the Organization, would be an indication that it is possible to reverse a trend which is troubling all those who hold close to their hearts and live by the ideals and proper functioning of the UN. 

 

Related information:

Muratore v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2011/129)

Muratore v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNAT/2012/245)

Mr. Muratore figured the approximate cost for taxpayers of the OHCHR post regularization exercise

GAP: UN Judge Asks Secretary-General to Reassure Whistleblowers

by Shelley Walden on July 19, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )

Last week, a United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) judge issued another extraordinary decision that demonstrates the Tribunal’s respect for whistleblowers. Like last month’s Wasserstrom decision, this judgment shows that UNDT - the court of first instance of the two-tier internal justice system through which UN employees contest violations of their rights – is committed to ensuring that UN whistleblowers are protected.

In Dzuverovic v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, the applicant, a former United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) employee, contested the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ (OIOS) refusal to investigate her disclosure of recruitment and procurement irregularities in UN-HABITAT. OIOS failed to inform the applicant of this decision until 2010, fifteen years after she made her initial disclosure. In the meantime, she was subjected to retaliation, including decisions that “proved to be to the detriment of her career,” (para. 72) and ultimately separated from service.

Unfortunately, Judge Nkemdilim Izuako was compelled to find that the case was inadmissible at the Tribunal, as Dzuverovic missed the UN’s ridiculously short 60-day statute of limitations for contesting an administrative decision. But, although the Judge dismissed the case, she took the extraordinary step of “RECOMMEND[ing] it to the Secretary-General for sympathetic review with a view to bringing substantive justice and closure to it” and pleaded for him to take “a compassionate view.” (Paragraphs 74 and 61,original emphasis) This appears to be the first time that a UNDT judge has made such a recommendation in a whistleblower case, and the fact that it is emphasized in the text of the ruling suggests that the judge expects this recommendation to be taken seriously. The judge also wrote that:

This recommendation is made bearing in mind the special measures that have been put in place with regards to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs, professional lives and livelihoods by courageously seeking to expose wrong-doings within the Organization. The United Nations, being the foremost international Organization for setting standards for governments and other organizations, needs to review the case of this Applicant as this will serve not only the ends of justice but also to reassure whistleblowers that they are indeed protected. (paragraphs 75 and 76).

Amen!

UN whistleblowers could certainly use the Secretary-General’s reassurance. The UN Ethics Office, which is charged with reviewing retaliation complaints and safeguarding the interests of UN whistleblowers, has only found retaliation and recommended relief in one of the approximately 297 retaliation complaints that it has received since its launch in 2006. And that outlier whistleblower has yet to be fully protected from retaliation. The Secretary-General should take action in that case – and Ms. Dzuverovic’s – to ensure that justice is done.

In addition, GAP recommends that the UN General Assembly revisit the deadline for submitting a request for Management Evaluation and an application to the Tribunal. The 60-day statute of limitations is a major flaw in the UN justice system. According to best practice whistleblower policies from around the world, six months is the minimum functional statute of limitations for whistleblowers to become aware of or act on their rights … and one-yearstatutes of limitations are consistent with common law rights and are preferable. Also, a review should be done of the propriety of OIOS’ decision not to investigate Dzuverovic’s disclosures due to “resource constraints” and, if any of the alleged wrongdoers remain employed by UN-HABITAT, an investigation should be opened.

Shelley Walden is International Officer for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leadingwhistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

UNDT/NY/2009/044 - USUN's Joe Torsella hails this week ruling on the UN Whistleblower, calls it: "UN Whistleblower world" - UNDT/2012/092

For those who haven't seen the ruling yet click here to read it :

http://www.un.org/en/oaj/files/undt/judgments/undt-2012-092.pdf

UNJustice.Org: SAD FACT THAT DEATH OF A UN-WFP PILOT TRIGGERS UGLY DISPUTE OVER INSURANCE COVERAGE

Click here to view this on UN Justice page

20 October 2011

UNJustice is saddened to know about the quarrel over the tragic loss of Michael Allan Prior, a UN-WFP pilot from South-Africa.

UNJustice hopes that the relevant UN-WFP authorities will give effective attention to the serious concerns of the widow, Mrs. Sheila Prior, and resolve this sensitive matter.

Mr. Prior, 52 years old, was found dead in bed in his hotel room in Surkhet, Nepal, on 23 March 2010. The day after, the autopsy conducted at Kathmandu Autopsy Center, Department of Forensic Medicine, concluded that the cause of death was coronary atherosclerotic heart disease. A disease which has many risk factors, including stress.

Michael Allen Prior has deserved recognition for his work and it has included a thoughtful letter of condolence to Mrs. Prior from UN-WFP Executive-Director:

“Mike joined WFP’s efforts to combat hunger in March 2005 as a Consultant and served WFP in different challenging duty stations including Chad and Sudan. Mike joined WFP Nepal in September 2008 and continued to serve WFP with great dedication and steadfastness.

Colleagues who knew him personally, fondly remember him as a caring and compassionate human being, with a winning, sincere smile. He was always ready to help others, and was an incredible source of comfort and strength to his colleagues. He will be truly missed by the WFP,” Josette Sheeran wrote.

Mrs. Prior, who is 60 and unemployed, has told UNJustice of her devastation at her husband's death and she feels that she has been let down by the UN-WFP:

“I had a stroke the day UN-WFP informed me over the phone that Mike had passed away. UN-WFP gave me another blow when Mike’s belongings were delivered in ugly bags made of coarse cloth, it looked like a refugee’s belonging being sent back to his country delivered by a courier company.

I was not paid any life cover and I will lose everything Mike and I worked for, even the roof over my head. I tried everything to have an explanation, even their Facebook page, where I approached UN-WFP Executive-Director and received a comment from her that Office of Human Resources is the right place to go. But the Office of Human Resources is not responding to me anymore. They threatened to block me if I sent other messages to their Facebook page, and finally they did.

I was told that my late husband’s contract was from 4 July 2009 to 3 January 2010, and that it was extended. But UN-WFP Legal Department did not give me any proof of an extended contract. I fear that Mike was working for UN-WFP without a signed contract when he died in March 2010. Without a signed contract how can I know if Mike had applied for the voluntary life cover? It is their word against a dead man’s word.

I also have a medical report stating that when Mike started to work with the UN-WFP, in 2005, his heart was healthy. Then he went to Chad, Sudan and Nepal where, in November 2008, he collapsed on duty at the airport next to a UN Helicopter. The Chief Pilot gave Mike cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 1 hour and 15 minutes and saved him. The stress of his work and living in those places have injured his health. Mike’s heart problems showed in the autopsy are similar to those mentioned in the medical report after his collapse on duty in November 2008 –the electrocardiogram strip was classified abnormal, it showed left atrial enlargement and left ventricular hypertrophy. If this would have happened home, we would have done everything to find out what was wrong with Mike. Any employer that had an employee almost dead for over an hour will know that there is a serious health problem with that employee. After the 2008 accident my husband should have already been sent back home”, says Sheila Prior.

UNJustice is embittered to know that, on 11 October 2011, an officer in the UN-WFP Legal Department has responded to the widow’s concerns by saying “Dear Ms. Prior, As you know, WFP has already reviewed these issues and provided extensive responses to you and to your representatives. We have nothing further to add. Thank you.”

UNJustice recalls that any allegedly work-related injury is a serious matter of concern. UNJustice believes that and Mrs. Prior bitter disappointment should not be indifferent to the UN-WFP and calls on the UN-WFP to give an adequate answer to the multiple, excruciating questions raised by Mrs. Prior about the employment with the UN-WFP of her late husband.

Please take action to demand that the UN-WFP issues the instructions necessary to adequately consider the concerns of late UN-WFP pilot Michael Allan Prior’s widow, Mrs. Sheila Prior.

URGENT To all UNDP staff: "Ethics Office Decisions are Appealable"

United Nations Dispute Tribunal Finds Ethics Office Decisions Appealable

by Shelley Walden on May 06, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

In a major breakthrough for United Nations whistleblowers, the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) has ruled that Ethics Office decisions can be appealed through the UN justice system.

In Judgment No. UNDT/2011/063 (Hunt-Matthes v. Secretary-General of the United Nations) UNDT Judge Vinod Boolell ruled that “when a claim relates to issues covered by ST/SGB/2005/21 [the UN Secretariat’s whistleblower protection policy], a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures and that if he or she is dissatisfied with the outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken.” (paragraph 40) The judge therefore found that the Ethics Office’s determination that there was no prima facie case of retaliation in the Applicant’s case can be reviewed by UNDT.

As a contributor to the UN whistleblower protection policy, GAP notes that the policy was indeed designed with the intent that Ethics Office decisions could be appealed through the organization’s internal justice system. Such judicial review may be the only way that UN whistleblowers will receive a fair evaluation of their case, as the Ethics Office’s record of protecting whistleblowers from retaliation is abysmal.

According to Ethics Office reports to the Secretary-General, from August 1, 2007 to July 31, 2010, a prima facie case of retaliation was found in 1.5% of the requests for protection from retaliation received by the Office (2 of 134 cases) **. Thanks to this important precedent, the 98.5% of UN whistleblowers who were previously denied protection from retaliation will now have the chance to appeal Ethics Office denials through the justice system and may finally receive relief.

In an interesting twist, Judge Boolell noted that the Secretary-General initially accepted the decision of the Ethics Office as a receivable administrative decision, but then reversed this determination on appeal. According to the ruling,

“the Tribunal finds it remarkable that the Respondent suddenly decided to reverse himself when the Applicant contested the same decision before the former UN Administrative Tribunal and asserted that the decision of the Ethics Office is not an administrative decision and therefore not receivable. The Tribunal finds it even more remarkable that the Respondent did not provide any reason(s), logical or otherwise, for this unexpected turnabout and yet expects the Tribunal to accept his argument unequivocally…the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant in that the finding of the Ethics Office had direct consequences for her rights because it effectively brought the complaint process to an end for her and prevented her, whether justly or unjustly, from pursuing any redress for the protected activity she had been found to have engaged in. It would be absurd that a decision, such as the one in this case, which impacts a staff member’s rights, should be unchallengeable.” (para. 44, 39)

Because UNDT is the first level of the UN’s two-tiered justice system, there is a possibility that this decision may be appealed. Hopefully, the Secretary-General will not be “absurd” enough to do so.

**In the remaining 1.5% of cases, the whistleblower was not necessarily vindicated. After a prima facie case of retaliation is found, the case is referred to an investigative body. Based on the findings of that investigation, the Ethics Office issues a final decision. It appears that none of the investigations conducted during this period substantiated retaliation. All public information on the subject, therefore, indicates that: 1) the United Nations is retaliation free, 2) real victims of retaliation did not report it to the Ethics Office but bogus whistleblowers did, or 3) no whistleblowers were actually protected from retaliation by the Ethics Office during this time period. Of the three possibilities, the first two strain credulity. The third seems quite plausible, however.

Shelley Walden is International Officer for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leadingwhistleblower advocacy organization.