Judgment No. 3364
1. The decision of the Director-General of WHO of 11 August 2011 is set aside to the extent that it maintained the dismissal of the complainant.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant an indemnity of 10,000 United States dollars under all heads of damage.
3. It shall also pay him 1,000 dollars in costs.
4. The complainant’s other claims are dismissed, as is the counterclaim by WHO.
The complainant successfully impugns on the grounds of a procedural flaw the decision to maintain his dismissal for misconduct.
complaint allowed; termination of employment; misconduct; disciplinary procedure
"Contrary to the argument put forward by WHO, the fact that the complainant admitted the truth of the facts imputed to him did not dispense it from the obligation to draw up the report provided for in the relevant provisions. A “transcript of the interview” cannot take the place of such a report."
due process in disciplinary procedure; investigation report
"The complainant is seeking reinstatement in WHO. However, in the circumstances of the case there are no grounds for ordering this. According to the Tribunal’s case law, reinstatement is inadvisable when an employer has valid reasons for losing confidence in an employee (see Judgment 2034, under 11), as is the case here. [I]t is clear that the complainant admits having breached his duty of confidentiality, and whatever the reasons he gives in an attempt to justify having done so, this itself undermines the necessary relationship of trust between a staff member and the Organization."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2034
reinstatement; termination of employment; staff member's duties; disciplinary measure
"[T]he fact that the procedure resulting in the disciplinary measure was conducted in breach of the applicable rules, as well as the length of the procedure and of the suspension, caused the complainant moral injury [...]."