Judgment No. 3777
1. The impugned decision dated 19 May 2014 is set aside.
2. The complainantís first complaint is dismissed.
3. The complainantís harassment complaint is remitted to the ILO to be referred to a Commission of Inquiry within thirty days of the public delivery of this judgment.
4. The ILO shall pay the complainant 15,000 euros in moral damages.
5. The ILO shall pay the complainant costs in the amount of 750 euros.
6. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and his performance appraisal for 2011 to 2013.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment
As the two complaints impugn the same decision, they are joined and will be the subject of a single judgment.
These allegations have been detailed as, even given the responses of the complainantís responsible chief, they provide with some of the complainantís other allegations, a case which required further investigation and consideration and should have been referred to a Commission of Inquiry for the conduct of an inquiry. For the omission to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry, the complainant will be awarded moral damages [...].
moral injury; harassment
The Tribunal stated the following in Judgment 3692, consideration 18:
ďIn Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal stated that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisationís duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8, and 3085, under 26).
Furthermore, the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of. An allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see Judgments 2100, under 13, 2524, under 25, and 3233, under 6, and the case law cited therein).Ē See also Judgment 3065, consideration 10.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692