Judgment No. 3365
1. WHO shall pay the complainant 5,000 United States dollars in compensation for the injury suffered, as indicated under 28
in the judgment.
2. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 1,000 dollars.
3. The sixth complaint and all other claims in the eighth complaint are dismissed.
The complainant impugns the decision dismissing his harassment complaint and his allegations of denial of justice.
complaint allowed; harassment; complaint dismissed
"Firm precedent has it that when an official makes allegations of harassment, she or he is entitled to have them dealt with in accordance with the rules and procedures in force (see Judgment 2642, under 8). If an organisation fails to do so, it breaches not only its own policies and rules, but also its duty of care towards the official."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
harassment; duty of care
The Policy on the Prevention of Harassment at WHO, which entered into force on 7 September 2010, provides in paragraph 8.5 that, “should the RBA or HBA receive an appeal which includes an allegation of harassment […], it shall deal with this aspect of the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Procedure”.
In addition, the Provisional Addendum of 22 November 2010 to the HBA Rules of Procedure (Revision 1) was introduced as a temporary measure applicable until such time as the HBA adapted its Rules of Procedure to the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment.
According to this addendum, if an appeal filed with the HBA contains an allegation of harassment, the Board must refer this aspect of the appeal to the Director of the IOS and hold the appeal in abeyance pending notification of the Director-General’s final decision on the matter. Upon receipt of the Director-General’s decision (including the IOS’ report if applicable), the HBA recommences its consideration of the original appeal. The addendum states that the HBA “shall be guided” by the Director-General’s decision with respect to the aspect of the appeal that concerns harassment.
harassment; rules of the organisation
The complainant deplores the fact that he did not receive the IOS report. It is, however, plain from the submissions in the file that no report was drawn up in this case, as is permissible under the policy on harassment when the IOS considers allegations to be manifestly groundless. In these circumstances WHO is obliged only to inform the complainant of the IOS findings. This was done by the Director-General’s decision of 22 December 2010.
inquiry; investigation; investigation report