Judgment No. 3295
The complaint is dismissed.
The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
"It is true that an organisation should investigate allegations of misconduct in a timely manner both in the interests of the person being investigated and the organisation. These interests include, among other things, safeguarding the reputations of both parties and ensuring that evidence is not lost."
delay; evidence; inquiry; organisation's duties; misconduct; consequence; duty of care
"The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1661
inquiry; case law; right to reply; due process; organisation's duties; termination; misconduct; serious misconduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; summary dismissal
"The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
decision; international civil servant; advisory body; report; confidential evidence; inquiry; general principle; right to reply; provision; effect; right
"In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
international civil servant; case law; general principle; proportionality; misconduct; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; summary dismissal; discretion