Judgment No. 3872
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
termination of employment; misconduct; disciplinary procedure; complaint dismissed
Considerations 2 and 3
Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunalís role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal determines that the complainantís plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
evidence; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; manifest error
The Tribunalís case law requires due process to be observed in disciplinary proceedings prior to imposing a disciplinary sanction against a staff member. As to due process in the context of an investigation in such proceedings, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 2771, consideration 15 [...].
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
due process; disciplinary procedure
[A]n international organization is entitled to implement appropriate security measures to secure its property.
[T]he Director-General concluded that, as a security guard, the complainant should not have used the privileged access keys, with which he was entrusted to carry out his assigned duties, to unlock the storage room and take the wine which was the property of the Organization for his personal benefit. The Director-General agreed with the HBA that that action was a violation of trust and of the complainant's responsibilities, and that the fact that his sole responsibility was the protection of security and safety of WHO premises was an aggravating factor.
misconduct; aggravating circumstances