Judgment No. 3377
Decision
1. The impugned decision contained in the Director-General’s letter of 29 May 2012 to the complainant is set aside to the extent that it rejected the claim of harassment.
2. The Organization shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant 6,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant successfully impugns the decision rejecting his harassment complaint, especially because he was deprived of work and because the Organisation breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The evidence shows that the Organization breached its duty to ensure that the complainant’s dignity was preserved with meaningful work during his last three years in the Organization. It was, in effect, a continual exclusion from work over that period. This constituted harassment that the FAO’s Administrative Circular No. 2007/05 expressly proscribes."
Keywords
respect for dignity; harassment
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The evidence further shows that the Organization also breached its duty to ensure that his complaints were addressed in a proactive manner. Circular No. 2007/05 charges persons who are in supervisory positions to ensure adherence to the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment by taking early corrective measures to avert or correct any act that threatens or compromises a staff member’s dignity. There is no evidence that such early corrective measures were taken to address the complainant’s situation."
Keywords
respect for dignity; harassment
Consideration 16
Extract:
"It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a document upon which a decision is based cannot be withheld from the concerned staff member. This disclosure obligation is not overcome by disclosure in the context of the Tribunal’s proceedings. However in the present case, the failure to disclose the correspondences did not prejudice the complainant (see Judgment 2899, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2899
Keywords
delay; disclosure of evidence
| 
