The United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) staff union has released a statement protesting the lack of effective whistleblower protections at the United Nations. The statement comes in the wake of a United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) verdict in the case of GAP advocacy client James Wasserstrom. The judgment overturned a verdict by a lower tribunal, which found that the U.N. Ethics Office – the unit established to protect U.N. whistleblowers  – erred when it failed to substantiate the retaliation that Wasserstrom was subjected to for having blown the whistle on an alleged kickback scheme. The UNAT found that Ethics Office recommendations are not subject to judicial review, even though the office has historically failed to protect 99 percent of whistleblowers who have sought its support.

The full press release from the UNOG Staff Coordinating Council is below. For additional information about the Wasserstrom verdict, see GAP’s press release.*

September 3, 2014

UNOG STAFF COORDINATING COUNCIL – PRESS RELEASE

UNION PROTESTS LACK OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AT UN AS COURT RULES AGAINST FORMER STAFFER JAMES WASSERSTROM

The ineffectiveness of the UN’s whistleblower protection policy was laid bare in a judgment of the organization’s internal labour court, the United Nations Appeal Tribunal, published today.

Meeting in New York, the court ruled that Mr. James Wasserstrom, who was arrested, probed and sacked for revealing fraud at the UN mission in Kosovo, was not entitled to claim compensation for the failure of the UN’s ethics office to protect him from retaliation. This despite an earlier ruling from a lower court that Wasserstrom had suffered “humiliating and degrading treatment,” and the organization had failed to provide the protection he deserved.

The UN’s 40,000 staff are required to report any misconduct or breach of the organization’s rules that they witness, and the Ethics Office is expected to protect them from retaliation. However, if they then do suffer retaliation, the onus is on them to provide proof that any act of retaliation against them was related to the whistleblowing and to nothing else. And with the Ethics Office and a separate investigations office severely under-resourced, the link is rarely established. By the time any investigation happens and protection measures are applied, it is often too late; staff may have been fired, harassed or demoted elsewhere.

The shortcomings of the UN’s whistleblower protection system were exposed in June this year in a paper sent to the Secretary-General’s management team by the UN’s staff unions (see link: http://staffcoordinatingcouncil.org/attachments/article/245/Whistleblowe…). It revealed that since 2006, when the Ethics Office was set up, it had protected less than 1 percent of the 343 staff who had come to it for help. The paper called for an urgent review of the office, that it be made independent from the organization in order to avoid conflicts of interest and that retaliators against whistleblowers be disciplined.

With the court’s decision that the action or inaction of the Ethics Office cannot be appealed and with given the poor performance of the Ethics Office, there therefore exists no functioning mechanism to protect whistleblowers at the UN.

Ian Richards, Executive Secretary of the UN’s Geneva staff union, pointed out that “The Ethics Office has unfortunately become unethical. It encourages colleagues, serving in some of the world’s most dangerous locations, to blow the whistle on fraud and misconduct and then either does nothing to protect them or wriggles its way out of the problem.”

“The regrettable result is an organizational culture in which UN staff personnel who are aware of misconduct, corruption and fraud are likely to remain silent. Crooked and corrupt managers are the only ones to benefit from this judgment.”

“The current system urgently needs to be replaced with one that genuinely protects staff and is independent from the Secretary-General. By exposing fraud and mismanagement, whistleblowers can save their employer and the global taxpayer millions. We need a system to protect them.”

The issue is all the more urgent since the UN’s biggest donor, the United States, which contributes 22 percent of its budget, passed the U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act.  The act requires the United Nations to provide whistleblowers with “results that eliminate the effects of proven retaliation” or 15 percent of its contributions deducted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Contact:
Ian Richards
President of the Geneva UN Staff Union
+41 76 456 8392

*NOTE: While GAP did not represent Mr. Wasserstrom in his litigation before the UNAT or the UNDT, it is working with him to press his case with oversight bodies, including U.S. congressional committees.

 

Shelley Walden is International Program Consultant for GAP.