UN Tribunal Acts on Wrongful Firing at UNJSPF, as key figure leaves to join Vendor

Shared by Tom McDermott

This article draws on a recent LinkedIn post by Ian Richards and an earlier article in Certioraris by Nadine Kaddoura.

Until now, this case has largely relied on cross-accusations and conjecture. Now, however, the ruling by the UN Dispute Tribunal provides clarity and calls on the Secretariat to make restitution to the former staff member. It is worth taking time to read through the Tribunal’s judgment, linked below.

The news that the key figure in the case, Pedro Guazo, has now left UNJSPF to join a principal UNJSPF vendor in apparent contravention of UN Rules is deeply disturbing and deserves its own investigation.
— Tom

---

A Tribunal Judgment Throws Light on a Deeper Management Issue at UNJSPF

In late June, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a landmark judgment—UNDT/2025/039—that may prove one of the most consequential in the Pension Fund’s history. The Tribunal found that a senior investment officer had been wrongfully dismissed in retaliation for raising the alarm over high-risk investment policy changes.

The Tribunal ordered that the staff member be reinstated or paid financial restitution totaling 24 months’ net base salary plus $40,000 for moral harm and due process violations—one of the strongest remedies seen in recent UN internal justice rulings.

Following the ruling, Ian Richards, a Pension Board member, raised further concerns about ethics and transparency. He noted that Pedro Guazo—the Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG) for the Pension Fund during the period of disputed investment changes—has left the UN and joined Northern Trust Asset Management as Head of International and Responsible Lending. Northern Trust is a key vendor to the Pension Fund, serving as its custodian and master record keeper.

Richards warned that Guazo’s new role raises potential violations of UN post-employment rules, which prohibit staff from accepting jobs with vendors involved in procurement decisions within a year of separation. The UN supplier code of conduct enforces a similar restriction, casting doubt on the propriety of Northern Trust’s relationship with the Fund if contract renewals occurred within the past three years.

An exposé in the blog Certioraris goes into further detail about how the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) seized personal IT devices, combed through private WhatsApp conversations, and built a misconduct case out of internal dissent—while actively suppressing exculpatory evidence.

Earlier cases involving four other dismissed officers may eventually come before the Tribunal. These officers were terminated after raising concerns about a “toxic work environment” and sudden changes in UNJSPF’s investment strategy. Their terminations prompted the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) to file a formal complaint to the Secretary-General.

The Tribunal’s full judgment is worth reading. Below is a summary, followed by selected key excerpts.

---

Summary of UNDT/2025/039 Judgment

The UN Dispute Tribunal ruled in favor of a former Senior Investment Officer at the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF), concluding that his separation from service was unlawful and constituted retaliation for protected whistleblowing.

The staff member had objected to benchmark changes initiated by the RSG that altered the composition of the fixed-income portfolio. These changes, he believed, exposed the Fund to undue risk and lacked proper oversight. Despite raising concerns internally and filing a group complaint with colleagues, he was targeted by OIOS in an aggressive investigation that included forensic searches of private emails and messages.

OIOS failed to uncover any direct misconduct by the staff member, but still forwarded charges based on “guilt by association,” using messages from colleagues or staff representatives to which he was merely copied. Two special reviews conducted by OIOS, which the staff member requested as evidence, were withheld by the Administration despite a direct order from the Tribunal to produce them.

The Tribunal found that his actions were in the interest of the Organization, and that his private criticisms of policy and leadership did not constitute misconduct. The process by which the Administration pursued his separation was marred by procedural bias, evidence suppression, and lack of impartiality.

---

Key Quotes from the Judgment

“...as professionals, the group including the Applicant had a duty to agitate against policies which they correctly predicted would cost the pension investment fund severe losses.”

“By standing up to the policies that may have cost the United Nations great loss, the Applicant also made a positive contribution to the Organization...his effort to stop the policies would have helped to institute change before the losses to the relevant funds reaped much greater damage to the Organization.”

“Private discourse, particularly in trusted spaces among colleagues, does not constitute misconduct, even if critical of supervisors.”

“A case was manufactured… from retrieving other people’s private communications and holding [the Applicant] responsible for their thoughts and words.”

“The refusal to disclose the OIOS reports, despite a clear Tribunal order, obstructed the Applicant’s right to a fair adjudication and constituted a serious due process failure.”

“The issue is not whether the outcome would have been different. But the issue is that it is not known whether there would have been a different outcome had the Applicant’s assertion of being a ‘whistleblower’ and the group’s complaint been handled in an objective and professional way which afforded an assessment of the basis of the complaint rather than dismissing it without even a comment.”