Judgment No. 3682
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for gross misconduct.
misconduct; harassment; complaint dismissed
[T]he complainant was [...] informed of the precise allegations against him and was provided with summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the investigator. The complainant was given three opportunities to be heard, respond to the allegations against him and provide his version of events before a finding of gross misconduct was reached [...]. Thus, the complainant’s due process rights were respected even though he was not permitted to attend witness interviews and participate in the examination of the evidence (see, also, Judgment 3083, consideration 3).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083
inquiry; due process; disciplinary measure; investigation
It is true, as stated in Judgment 1312, that matters within a staff member’s private life are relevant only to the extent that they may affect the staff member’s performance of official duties. However, an allegation of harassment is not about the performance of official duties. Instead, it concerns an employee’s conduct that has a deleterious impact on the dignity and wellbeing of another employee. It is for this reason that a determination as to whether any particular act or series of acts amount to harassment can only be made after a careful consideration of the relevant events and an examination of them in the broader context. In the present case, there was a real and substantial nexus between the complainant’s conduct and the workplace.