ROSS LAW was behind this case, representing Claude Cahn before both the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and, on appeal, the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT).
The case is an important development in the law concerning the UN’s duty of care towards its staff, particularly where an organisation becomes aware that a staff member is working in a harmful or seriously dysfunctional environment.
In UNDT Judgment No. UNDT/2022/008, the Tribunal considered whether the Administration had taken sufficient steps to protect Mr Cahn after becoming aware of serious problems in his working environment.
The case is significant because the Tribunal drew an important distinction between two questions: whether prohibited conduct has been established, and whether the Administration has nevertheless failed in its independent duty of care towards the staff member.
The UNDT found that, although the allegations did not justify disciplinary proceedings against the First Reporting Officer, the Administration had been aware of the deteriorating working conditions and had failed to take sufficiently timely protective measures.
The Tribunal therefore awarded Mr Cahn compensation equivalent to seven months’ net base salary.
The Secretary-General appealed.
In 2023-UNAT-1329, UNAT confirmed the UNDT’s judgment. It upheld the finding that the Administration had breached its duty of care and emphasised that this duty requires the organisation to act with due diligence and without delay when it becomes aware of circumstances that may cause harm to a staff member.
That is perhaps the most important lesson from the case.
The duty of care is not merely a duty to react once misconduct has been proven. It can require an organisation to act preventively when it knows that a staff member is being exposed to a harmful working environment.
The decision has practical implications for international organisations and their staff alike. When concerns are raised about a workplace, the relevant question is not only whether disciplinary action is warranted. Organisations must also consider what interim or preventive measures are necessary to protect the staff member while the underlying concerns are being addressed.
For practitioners in the international civil service, Cahn is therefore an important authority on the scope of the duty of care—and on the consequences of failing to act quickly enough.
ROSS LAW is proud to have represented Mr Cahn in establishing this important principle before the UNDT and defending it successfully on appeal before UNAT.