Judgment No. 2786
1. The decision of the Director-General of 4 January 2008 is set aside, as are the decisions of the Regional Director of 30 April 2003 and 17 August 2004.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant salary and other entitlements for the period from 8 May 2003 until the expiry of his then current contract, together with any indemnity or other allowance that would then have been payable by reason of the non-renewal of his contract, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of his contract until the date of payment.
3. WHO shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 5,000 United States dollars and moral damages in the amount of 3,000 dollars.
4. It shall pay him the sum of 49,240 Indian rupees in respect of the health insurance claim made concerning his son, together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 1 December 2002 until the date of payment.
5. WHO shall also pay the complainant 500 dollars by way of costs.
6. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
"It is to be noted that, in cases of dismissal, the staff member must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 635, under 10). Further, when misconduct is denied, it is for the Administration to prove it and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 969, under 16)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 635, 969
burden of proof; benefit of doubt; organisation's duties; termination of employment; misconduct; official
"Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgment 2496, under 7)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; right to reply; due process; serious misconduct; disciplinary procedure; right
"It is not open to an international organisation to justify a decision by conducting further enquiries after the internal appeal proceedings have been concluded, much less by conducting enquiries into a charge of misconduct that was not relied upon as the basis for rejecting an internal appeal. So to do is not only to deprive a person of his/her right to be heard in answer to a charge of misconduct, including by testing the evidence against him/her, but also to render the appeal proceedings futile."
decision; grounds; internal appeal; evidence; inquiry; right to reply; organisation's duties; breach; serious misconduct; refusal; investigation
"The charge against the complainant was 'fraud'. As the charge was denied, it was for the Organization to establish that the complainant had knowingly made a false claim."
burden of proof; organisation's duties; misconduct; request by a party