Judgment No. 3968
The complaints are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
downgrading; misconduct; disciplinary measure; staff representative; complaint dismissed
Consistent case law holds that “[t]he executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached” (see Judgment 3862, under 20) (see also Judgments 3208, under 10 and 11, 3727, under 9, and the case law cited therein). In the present case, the President justified his deviation from the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208, 3727, 3862
duty to substantiate decision; final decision
Considerations 26 and 27
The Tribunal concludes the complainant acted carelessly, with regard to a very sensitive subject, conscious of the probability that her statement would highly offend other staff members and would create great unrest among colleagues, damaging the work environment. The Tribunal observes the complainant’s actions were serious and wrong and cannot be justified by an alleged good purpose.
[T]aking into account the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary authority and, in particular, the complainant’s refusal to apologize to Mr A. and the serious consequences of that behaviour on Mr A.’s health, the Tribunal finds that the contested disciplinary measure is not disproportionate and that the complainant’s twentieth complaint must also be dismissed (see Judgment 3640, under 29).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
proportionality; misconduct; disciplinary measure