Judgment No. 4005
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.
In support of her position, the complainant relies on the Tribunal’s statement that “[a] fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party” (see Judgment 3216, consideration 6), and that the non-disclosure of evidence in the absence of a reason in law “constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness” (see Judgment 3264, consideration 16). The Tribunal’s case law also relevantly states 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 [her or] him” (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 3216, 3264
disclosure of evidence; adversarial proceedings; due process
[T]he fact of reporting unsatisfactory conduct may be relevant in a harassment case alleging retaliation.
unsatisfactory service; harassment; retaliation
Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, a reading of the report shows that the DAB engaged in an in-depth consideration of the complainant’s and Ms M.’s submissions, reviewed the relevant case law, specifically considered each of the alleged forms of harassment, the issue of retaliation, and carefully weighed the evidence with which it was provided. It is also observed that the DAB’s conclusions and recommendations were based on a thorough and balanced consideration of all the relevant facts and case law. It is now well established in the case law that such a report warrants considerable deference (see, for example, Judgment 3969, consideration 11).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
internal appeals body; deference