Judgment No. 1190
Decision
1. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY TO MR. BANSAL, MR. CHOWDHARY AND MR. HARPALANI THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE WITHIN-GRADE SALARY INCREMENT AT GRADE ND.7 FOR ONE YEAR AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE SCALES SET OUT IN REVISION 29, AMENDMENT 1.
2. IT SHALL PAY MR. BANSAL AND ANY OTHER COMPLAINANT WHO EXERCISED HIS RIGHT UNDER WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4 AN AWARD OF 250 UNITED STATES DOLLARS EACH IN DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE VIII OF THE TRIBUNAL'S STATUTE.
3. IT SHALL PAY MR. BANSAL $250 AND MR. CHOWDHARY AND MR. HARPALANI $50 EACH IN COSTS.
4. THE COMPLAINANTS' OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
5. THE INTERVENERS SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE COMPLAINANTS INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN LIKE CASE IN LAW AND IN FACT.
Summary
Extract:
Under WHO Staff Rule 1230.4 an official who has appealed to the Appeals Board is entitled to challenge two of its members. One of the complainants exercised that right but had his challenge rejected. There was therefore a serious flaw in the internal appeal procedure. The material issue is whether the Director-General was entitled to treat the Board's report as being in line with the material rules. The report itself discloses that the rights of one of the complainants had been ignored. The Tribunal holds that "the Director-General has a duty to enforce the rules. He knew of the breach and should have rejected the report insofar as it concerned [the complainant] who objected to it as not being in accordance with those rules: he was not entitled to proceed as if no breach had occurred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; internal appeals body; recusal; internal appeal; recommendation; report; due process; staff regulations and rules; flaw; composition of the internal appeals body
| 
