ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > case sent back to organisation

Judgment No. 3083

Decision

1. The Director-General's decision of 6 May 2009 is set aside to the extent that it upheld his earlier finding that the complainant failed to detect and verify irregularities in bidding documents.
2. The matter is remitted to the Director-General to determine whether to uphold his decision to dismiss the complainant summarily or to take some other course.
3. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.

Consideration 3

Extract:

"[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."

Keywords

inquiry; adversarial proceedings; right to reply; misconduct; summary dismissal; investigation

Consideration 10

Extract:

"[T]he Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service provide that international civil servants "should avoid assisting private bodies or persons in their dealings with their organization where this might lead to actual or perceived preferential treatment" and they "should [...] voluntarily disclose in advance possible conflicts of interest that arise in the course of carrying out their duties". The complainant argues that "should" is aspirational in nature and not mandatory. This argument must be rejected."

Keywords

international civil service principles; staff member's duties; conduct; official

Consideration 14

Extract:

"Where [...] a person relies on an exception to escape liability, it is for that person to establish that his actions fell within the exception."

Keywords

liability; exception; burden of proof

Consideration 14

Extract:

"Even in the absence of fraud or other dishonesty, systematic action taken for the purpose of circumventing the Financial Rules by a person whose function it is to authorise the expenditure of the funds of an international organisation constitutes serious misconduct."

Keywords

misconduct; serious misconduct; definition

Consideration 7

Extract:

[T]he complainant contends by reference to the note signed by the Director-General [...] that the latter had already decided upon his summary dismissal. Presumably, it is on this basis that it is argued that the presumption of innocence was not maintained throughout the procedure leading to his summary dismissal. It may be that a previous indication of an intention to take a particular decision or the maintenance of an earlier decision even though additional arguments and/or evidence have been provided will indicate that the decision-maker did not properly evaluate the evidence or failed to take account of all relevant facts. In the present case, however, […] it is not established that the Director-General did not fully consider the arguments and evidence adduced by the complainant. Similarly, it is not established that he did not properly evaluate all the available material. Accordingly, the argument that the presumption of innocence was not maintained must also be rejected.

Keywords

presumption of innocence

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; summary dismissal

Consideration 20

Extract:

The complainant makes two further arguments, namely, that there are mitigating or other factors that would warrant a less severe sanction than summary dismissal and that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the findings made by the Director-General. In this context, it is appropriate to note that the Director-General’s decision of 6 May 2009 must be set aside to the extent that it upheld the finding with respect to irregular bidding documents. So far as concerns the factors which, it is said, would warrant a lesser penalty, the Tribunal sees no merit in the argument that the complainant’s previous excellent record should have been taken into account or that regard should have been had to the subsequent action of the Administration to introduce procurement training or the fact that his actions had been approved by his supervisors.

Keywords

mitigating circumstances



 
Last updated: 14.10.2021 ^ top