✕
Join the conversation
Enter your comment below.
Your comment has been posted! This page will now refresh.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
All personnel: SMs and non-staff such as consultants, subscribers to Personnel Service Agreements, volunteers, interns, national project personnel and any other type of personnel recruited for services (Administrative Circular, para. 11)
Within 6 months from the date of the alleged incident or most recent incident, excluding the time during which the complainant was on sick leave or duty travel, and any time spent in resolving the situation through informal resolution process. Complaints filed more than one year after the most recent alleged incident will be inadmissible (Administrative Circular, para. 29).
Anyone, to Office of Inspector General (OIG) (Administrative Circular, para. 28).
Staff members
Not mentioned (Policy, article 15, referring to AM.II/17 for detailed procedure)
Complaining staff member (Policy, article 15).
All current and former SMs (article 4.1);
Alleged harasser must “currently” be a SM (article 6.6)
Within 6 months of the first instance of the alleged conduct as regards current SMs(article 6.6).
Former SMs shall file a complaint within 90 days following the end of their employment, provided that the first instance of alleged harassment occurred within 90 days prior to the SM’s departure (article 6.6.)
SMs, independent contractors, gratis personal, interns, consultants, interpreters and experts on mission (articles 5.1, 6.1-6-2; see also article 7.2) to the Registrar or Prosecutor.
Officials, job applicants and interns, external collaborators and technical cooperation personnel (2004 Sexual Harassment Policy, Annex 1, article 1).
Within 6 months of the occurrence of the “behaviour which gave rise to the grievance” (2004 Sexual Harassment Policy, Annex 1, article 3) (2020 Staff Rules, Article 13.4.2 (2).
The aggrieved individual to the Director of the Human Resources Development Department (HRDD) (2004 Sexual Harassment Policy, Annex 1, article 3) (2020 Staff Rules, Article 13.4.3.)
SMs (Staff Regulations, Appendix E, Section 2).
No time-limit.
Earliest possible is encouraged. (Staff Regulations, Appendix E, articles 5.1, 5.11).
The aggrieved individual or any third party with knowledge of the situation shall submit a report to the Director of the Division concerned or to HRS, where the Director of the Division is the alleged offender.
(Staff Regulations, Appendix E, articles 5.11-5.12).
SMs and non-staff members, i.e. any person working at or on behalf of INTERPOL (2019 Harassment Policy, p. 2).
No time-limit for reporting, however reporting as soon as possible is encouraged (2019 Harassment Policy, p. 6).
The complainant can lodge a claim to the Internal Oversight Services (IOS) either directly or indirectly, through their direct supervisor (2019 Harassment Policy, p. 6).
Complaints may be anonymous and lodged by a third party (2019 Harassment Policy, p. 7).
SMs, professional and general staff (Staff Regulations, regulation 1.1)
No time-limit mentioned.
IOM staff or any persons (also non-staff) who has knowledge of misconduct by IOM staff member to Ethic and Conduct Office (https://www.iom.int/ethics-and-conduct-office)
All staff members (Harassment Policy, Articles 1-2).
No time-limit mentioned.
The formal complaint can be submitted to the Head of Human Resources by the complainant directly or, upon receipt of a written request from the complainant outlining the situation, by the following people:
- social adviser;
- organization’s doctor;
- human resources adviser;
- OECD mediators;
- staff association. (Harassment Policy, Articles 14-15).
International civilian personnel of the IS and IMS;
External contractor, member of NATO delegation or of military headquarters, in consultation with other employer (Policy, Article 3).
No time-limit mentioned for initiating an informal procedure or mediation.
If the informal procedure is not successful, the complainant may submit a complaint within 30 days (Policy, Article 11.1, CPR, Article 61 and Annex IX, Articles 2, 4.1).
No time-limit mentioned for initiating an informal procedure or mediation.
If the informal procedure is not successful, the complainant may submit a complaint within 30 days (Policy, Article 11.1, CPR, Article 61 and Annex IX, Articles 2, 4.1).
All personnel: SMs and non-staff members, including consultants, contractors, interns and any other individual engaged for services at the OPCW. (Directive, Articles 6, 8(g)).
As soon as possible after the initial or most recent incident, normally within six months (Directive, Articles 18, 41).
Aggrieved individual to the Director-General, cc Director, Administration. (Directive, Articles 38-40).
No anonymous complaints (Directive, Article 41).
All Officials and Non-OSCE Staff, i.e. consultants, daily or hourly staff, Junior Professional Officers and interns (different procedures may apply where the complainant or alleged offender is a non-OSCE staff) (Staff Instruction, Articles 3.1.-3.2, and 9.3)
Within 30 days of the last alleged incident for OSCE Officials or 30 days from the expiry of appointment for former Officials. The time limit may be extended in exceptional circumstances. (Staff Instruction, Article 8.4)
For Non-OSCE staff, the Department of HR (DHR) should be consulted to seek guidance on appropriate course of action (Staff Instruction, Article 9.3)
OSCE Officials (Staff Instruction, Annex 2, Article 2.1) - addressed to the Secretary General or to the Head of the respective Executive Structure, with a copy to the SG and the Director, DHR (Staff Instruction, Annex 2, Article 2.1).
No anonymous complaints will be accepted (Staff Instruction, Annex 2, Article 2.2).
The form for the complaint is provided at Annex 4 (Staff Instruction, Annex 4)
Exceptionally, the Secretary General or Head of the respective Executive Structure may decide to initiate an investigation in the absence of a formal complaint (Staff Instruction, Article 9.2).
All staff: staff member, consultant, contractor, gratis personnel, including interns, and any other person who may have been subject to prohibited conduct on the part of a staff member in a work-related situation.
(Bulletin, Article 2.4).
No time limit. As soon as possible.
(Bulletin, Articles 5.1, 5.11).
The aggrieved individual may file a complaint to the head of department, office or mission concerned (Bulletin, Article 5.11).
A third party who has knowledge of the situation may initiate the procedure by submitting a report (Bulletin, Article 5.11).
Staff members (Information Note, p. 1).
Within 180 calendar days of the alleged fact or most recent incident (Policy, article 7.4).
Complainant (Policy, article 7.2) to the Director, Internal Oversight Services (IOS); or
by the Executive Director even in the absence of a formal complaint (Policy, article 7.13).
All Personnel: SMs, non-staff members, including independent contractors, service contractors, seconded personnel on (Non-) Reimbursable Loan Agreement, UNVs and interns (Policy, Article 5 and Annex 2).
There is NO time limit for reporting sexual harassment but as soon as possible is encouraged (Policy, articles 26 and 31). For all other prohibited conduct, within 1 year from the date of the last incident (Policy, Article 31).
The time limits are suspended for informal resolution and may be exceptionally extended by the Director, Office of Audit & Investigation (OAI) (Policy, Article 31).
Aggrieved individual to OAI (Policy, articles 24-25, 31, 35).
Reports of sexual harassment will be prioritized by OAI (Policy, Article 27).
The Administrator or Associate Administrator may refer to a matter to the OAI and the Director of OAI may initiate investigations o at his/her own initiative, including without a formal complaint (Policy, article 35).
SMs, contractors, interns, volunteers and occasional workers (Policy, Article 4).
No time limit (Policy, Articles 27-30).
Aggrieved individual to the Director-General (Policy, Article 27); or the Director-General or any other person who had direct knowledge of the situation may initiate the formal process by submitting a report Policy, Article 28).
All personnel: SM, individual independent contractors or consultants, interns or gratis personnel (2018 Policy, article 2).
No time limit. Earliest possible encouraged (2018 Policy, article 5.3.1)
Any person to the Office of Audit and Investigation Service (2018 Policy, article 5.3.1-2).
Complaints may be anonymous (2018 Policy, article 5.3.1).
SMs and non-staff members (Policy, article 18).
As soon as possible and within 1 year from the incident of alleged harassment, sexual harassment or abuse of authority for the informal process (Policy, article 22).
Immediately or after the informal process, normally within 1 year of the incident for the formal process. (Policy, article 22).
Individuals may choose to deal with a grievance or complaint through either informal or formal process (Policy, article 33).
Any individual, including former staff members, non-staff or someone who is aware of the incident (Policy, article 34).
All staff members (Executive Directive, article 3.1).
Complaints can only be filed against other UNICEF SMs, and not employees of other UN entity.
Within 6 months of the most recent incident (Executive Directive, article 5.11).
Anyone can file a complaint (Executive Directive, article 5.10), to the Director, Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (OIAI), with copy to the Director, Division of Human Resources (Executive Directive, article 5.11).
No anonymous complaints will be accepted (Executive Directive, article 5.10).
All Personnel, including staff members, individual contractors, interns and volunteers (Policy, article 2.1).
Within 45 calendar days from the date of the last incident (Policy, article 7.3.2 (a).
Within 30 calendar days from the conclusion of the Ombudsperson or third party’s official involvement in the mediation, the Ombudsperson or a third party of mediation have been requested within the 45 days, the formal complaint shall be filed (Policy, article 7.3.2 (b), (c)).
Time limits may be exceptionally extended (Policy, article 7.3.2 (d)).
The informal procedure may be initiated any time after the incident (Policy, article 7.3.1).
Aggrieved individual may submit a complaint to the Director, HRPG.
Formal resolution may also be initiated by a third party with direct knowledge of the situation, by submitting a report to the Director, HRPG (Policy, article 7.2.1).
Anonymous complaints will not be accepted (Policy, article 7.2.1. (e)).
Staff Members (unclear whether this includes former).
No time-limit mentioned (Harassment Policy, Articles 5.1 and 5.2).
The complainant shall file a complaint with the Professional Ethics Office (Harassment Policy, Article 5.2).
All employees (Executive Director’s Circular, para. 8)
No time-limit. (Executive Director’s Circular, para. 56).
The informal process is not required ((Executive Director’s Circular, para. 44).
The aggrieved person or another person (Executive Director’s Circular, paras 55-56, 59) shall submit a report to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (Executive Director’s Circular, para. 57).
The report may be anonymous (Executive Director’s Circular, para. 56).
The OIG may initiate an investigation of its own initiative (Executive Director’s Circular, para 61).
All SMs, current and former (Policy, article 1.3). Non-staff members are “guided by the policy as appropriate (Policy, articles 1.4-1.5).
Within 180 calendar days of the alleged fact or most recent incident (Policy, article 7.4).
Complainant (Policy, article 7.2) to the Director, Internal Oversight Services (IOS); or by the Director General ex officio (Policy, article 7.13)
Staff members.
Within 90 calendar days from the date of the incident or the last incident (Staff Regulations and Rules, Rule 11.4.1 (a)).
Aggrieved person submits complaint to the Director General, with copy to the Director of HRMD (Staff Regulations and Rules, Rule 11.4.1 (a)).
Personnel (President, Vice-Presidents, Chief Evaluator and SMs) and experts performing missions for the Bank to the extent set out in their contracts (Policy, Article 2).
No time-limit. Aggrieved individuals are “urged” to take prompt action (Policy, Articles 18, 19, 20).
See also the updated Workplace Procedures, Article 1.2.
Aggrieved individual or a third person who has witnesses the behaviour may register a complaint (Policy, article 20), to Managing Director, Human Resources and Management Development (Workplace Procedures, Article 1.2.). The latter may initiate an assessment also in the absence of a report (Workplace Procedures, Article 1.2.(c)).
Persons working for the EIB group (EIB and European Investment Fund) (Dignity at Work Policy, preamble). For full list, Dignity at Work Policy, Article 1.3.
Within a reasonable time, but no later than 5 years from the last act or from the conclusion of an unsuccessful mediation procedure (Dignity at Work Policy, Article 20.2).
The alleged victim, (Dignity at Work Policy, 20.1.a)), or ex officio by the Director General of the Personnel Directorate of the EIB (DGP) or the Head of Human & Resources Management Department of the EIF (Head H&RM)
(Dignity at Work Policy, article 20.1.b.).
Internal Rules on Harassment: complaints involving accredited parliamentary assistants (alleged victim) and members of the European Parliament (alleged offenders).
No time-limit (Internal Rules on Harassment, article 7).
Accredited parliamentary assistants APA (alleged victim) and members of the European Parliament (alleged offenders), (Internal Rules on Harassment, article 7), to the Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and members of the Parliament and its prevention in the workplace (Committee) (Internal Rules on Harassment, articles 1, 3, 7)
No time-limit.
As soon as possible action encouraged (Policy, article 5, stage 3)
Complainant to HR Special Advisor, preferably after discussing the case with the Harassment Contact Person (Policy, stage 3)
Staff members in broad sense (Charter of Ethics, article 1, fn. 2).
No time-limit (Charter of Ethics, pp 9-10).
Request of assistance in accordance with Art. 24 of the Staff Regulations to the Appointing Authority (Charter of Ethics, p.10).
All civilian members (including seconded, contracted personnel, response teams and visiting experts) (Code of Conduct, article 1.1)
No time-limit (Code of Conduct, articles 4, 6-7).
Mission members have a duty to report (Code of Conduct, articles 4, 6.4).
NDAs hiding the extent of #UNToo?
Read storyOrganisational Policies on Harassment at a Glance
Read storyThe Ugly Voice of Truth or the Uglier Silence of Indifference
Read story
▌Limited to no progress towards this promise and no indication that it will be achieved in a reasonable timeframe.
▌This promise has not been achieved, and although progress is underway, much more work needs to be done. There may also be problems with the actions taken so far that undermine the usefulness of action towards this promise.
▌This promise has been achieved, or strong positive progress has been made, even if some work needs to be done.
The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guteress, made a slew of promises and assurances on combating sexual harassment and abuse (SHA) in the UN. Guteress accepted that the UN had failed to gain the trust of its staff to come forward against misconduct because it had failed to stand by previous complainants. Over a period of 24 months since late 2016, he called on staff to Speak Up against harassment when they see it and to support staff who report it, while himself committing to stronger policies on reporting, retaliation and investigation, as well as a rapid response system.
When one condenses all the Secretary General’s “Zero Tolerance Must Translate to Zero Tolerance in Action” speeches from late 2016 to early 2019, they can be distilled into 10 key commitments. Since accountability is essential in targeting and addressing prohibited conduct, we tracked how the UN was performing on these promises. The following assessments are based purely on our analysis of the limited information on progress available through public domain material.
This assessment focusses on new commitments, made in the wake of the #MeToo campaign and does not cover policy changes prior (e.g. revising the whistleblower policy and the gender parity policy).
Six SHA specialised investigators were appointed globally and report to the OIOS representative in New York. It is UNKNOWN whether all existing investigators were trained on SHA related skills.
This promise seeks to improve internal resourcing to investigate and respond to complaints. Therefore, it is concerning that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) has been ignored. Without legal support, neither the complainant nor the accused can navigate the complex internal justice mechanism. Sadly, complainants are frequently advised that they will not require legal support during the internal investigations. The OIOS has seen over 200% increase in SHA complaints since 2016-17 while OSLA continues to work with 12 lawyers for the UN Secretariat global workforce. A holistic assessment of overall staffing needs would be a useful step for achieving the intent of this promise.
Despite being applied for all new cases, the 2019 anti-harassment policy of UN does not make it part of the promised responses. Also, older cases continue to languish without the 'upgrade'.
The 2019 anti-harassment policy has done the exact opposite of this promise by completely removing any time line from the investigation and resolution process. Effectively, the SG has backtracked on this commitment.
The SpeakUp helpline in New York HQ and can be reached at: +1 917-367-8910.
UN duty stations in Addis Abba, Bangkok, Beirut, Geneva, New York, Nairobi, Santiago, and Vienna can use extension: 78910. Peacekeeping or political mission personnel must dial an addition prefix: 1212-78910.
That said, these numbers are difficult to recall or use, especially for staff not in the United States; the helpline is staffed by volunteers, rather than a trained dedicated team; and volunteers are not equipped for tele-counselling but rather provide directory services for the most appropriate port of help for the caller.
The Safe Spaces Survey was conducted by Deloitte and published in mid-January 2019.
The survey found 1 in 3 women in the UN face sexual harassment, rising to 1 in 2 for interns, consultants and temp staff (i.e. those on precarious, insecure contracts with greater dependency on supervisors for their UN careers). However, no actions have been identified to respond to this finding, particularly considering the escalating use of short-term and insecure employment arrangements partly as a cost-cutting measure.
The mandatory training on the SGB on harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination, and abuse of authority has been revised. UNKNOWN whether other training have been updated too.
To improve the impact of preventive measures such training, expert behavioural change trainers need to be involved in the design and delivery of any new training.
All efforts and discussion for harmonisation of the anti-harassment policy has met with such great resistance that we don't expect this to ever pass! Even the very basic - a common definition of sexual harassment - cannot be agreed by UN bodies, who believe they are all different & unique and need a fit-for-purpose policy.
Clearcheck is available to all UN bodies internally, and maybe opened up to the development/ humanitarian sector at large if proven useful.
However, it continues to face a lot of resistance and concerns on privacy and data storage grounds. As per the progress report, the database is in use but not widely yet. Time will tell whether it is faithfully updated or referenced.
Through the IASC Champion on SEA and SH, there are efforts for leadership commitment to rebuild trust by bringing to light cases themselves rather than covering up; worrying less about reputation by focusing on follow up and self-reporting; making disclosure obligations for applicants to prevent rehiring of offenders and waiving immunity. OCHA created a fund of $1 million to support and speed up investigations on SEA and SH. However, noting the grave reputational damage from SEA, it is expected that the primary focus of a "joint" mandate on SEA and SHA will remain on beneficiaries rather than what the UN views as “blue-on-blue” transgressions.
UNKNOWN when and how immunity will be waived, but it certainly has not happened yet!
In existing and ongoing cases, where the Secretary General had invoked immunity, he continues to stress it to protect the officials accused to shield them from local and/or other legal proceedings.
There is no update on code of conduct for delegates visiting the UN and the latest Handbook does not even mention the anti-harassment policy.
Enter your comment below.
0 Comments