The harassment working group

Nigel Lindup, UNOG

The following is an extract of the introductory statement by the coordinator of the Harassment Working Group, Mr. Nigel Lindup.

« Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to describe the background to this document.

Seven years ago, the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, declared that there was no place for discrimination and harassment in this Organization, and recognized the United Nations’ responsibility as an employer to prevent harassment and take prompt action whenever it occurred. Measures to make this possible should be put in place (ST/IC/1997/37).

In 2002, with none of the promised preventive and regulatory mechanisms in sight, and with harassment only too visible, the UNOG Staff Coordinating Council set up a working group to consider the subject. This working group produced a report which was submitted to SMCC in September 2002 (SMCC-XXVI/2002/10). There, the administration and staff agreed to issue an information circular on harassment, to draft a new administrative instruction covering all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment, and to set up a joint working group to that end.

In November 2002, paragraph 20 of the new Standards of conduct for the international civil service (ST/SGB/2002/13) established United Nations staff’s right to an environment free of harassment, one of the few explicit rights we enjoy, and an information circular was duly issued in March 2003 (ST/IC/2003/17), recalling the prohibition on harassment in the Staff Rules and Regulations. Nothing came, however, of the administrative instruction that was supposed to define harassment, and so, in August 2003, the Coordinating Council reconstituted the working group and staff took the initiative for drafting such an instruction.

We have worked more slowly than last time, but the working group has succeeded in preparing a draft that meets nearly all the requirements agreed at SMCC-XXVI. The only thing we have not done is to deal with sexual harassment, but the fact is that there is already an administrative instruction on that subject and we needed to prioritize the issue of psychological harassment, which seems to be much more common than sexual harassment. That we have managed to produce this draft is thanks to the commitment of a core of members, who attended nearly every meeting. Some of them could not be with us today, but some are here and I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

Mr. Chairman, I now have the honour to present this draft administrative instruction on workplace harassment. It is up to you and our representatives on the Council to defend it and negotiate its implementation by the administration. These are radical, innovative proposals and they have certain financial implications. The Organization will have to make a choice: either it must accept specified, predictable expenditure before the fact, in an attempt to prevent harassment occurring, or else it will have to continue to incur the hidden, unpredictable, but no less significant, expenses that arise when harassment occurs.

The defence and support of a victim of harassment is a heavy responsibility for staff representatives. In most cases victims’ health is at stake, as well as their professional and often their family life; in some tragic cases – fortunately rare – their life as such is at risk. It is in your interests to ensure that this instrument is adopted, partly to back you up in your actions in defence of harassment victims, but principally in order to make it possible to shift the main burden of responsibility to people who are qualified in this area – those we refer to in this draft as « harassment counsellors ». Unless this is done, the battle will be all too unequal and the number of staff members suffering will only increase.

That is one of the key points of this draft ST/AI. The other key point I would like to highlight is that, as we showed in our report, the victim’s perception must always be duly taken into account. There is a subjective element in cases of harassment that we must never lose sight of. We have tried to take account of this subjective element in the two basic principles we set forth in paragraph 7.8. Firstly, equal weight must always be given to the initial statements of the two parties. Harassment is a demonstration of power, and when victims finally take the extremely difficult decision to break their silence, they are already in a highly vulnerable state. It is vital not to disqualify the victim by dismissing their initial allegations or trying to explain the alleged harasser’s actions. If we do, we can easily give the impression that we don’t believe the victim – or, worse, that we’re on the harasser’s side. Hardly a desirable approach for a person in such psychological turmoil. We must know how to listen.

Secondly, the alleged harasser must at some stage be required to explain how his or her actions in respect of the victim furthered the interests of the Organization or the workplace, i.e., to demonstrate that they were acting in a purely professional manner.

There will naturally be changes to be made and ground to concede, in negotiating this ST/AI. But there are certain points that should not be negotiable. In our view, it would be a good idea to hold a seminar to enable staff representatives to discuss the issue in greater depth, so that you are aware of what those points might be. The Geneva Red Cross organizes such seminars and I can provide details. From our contact with victims of harassment, and with those who are dealing with their cases, we know that there are certain aspects of this complex subject that still need clarification. This is vital, not only for the negotiations, but also for the continuing defence of our colleagues while waiting for these measures to be adopted. We are at your disposal for any questions you may have now and during the preparation for those negotiations ».