Judgment No. 999
1. THE DECISION OF 5 JANUARY 1989 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE WHO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S INTERNAL APPEAL.
3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY HIM 500 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN DAMAGES.
The complainant was accused of grave misconduct. An inquiry was held into the facts in the absence of the complainant. The Tribunal held that "whoever makes inquiries of the kind that were made in this case must be scrupulous in not taking evidence from one party without the other's knowledge. Whether or not the evidence did work to the complainant's prejudice is irrelevant. It is sufficient that it might have done so, and it is not the likelihood but the risk of prejudice that is fatal. There can be no certainty that justice will be done if evidence is taken in the absence of one of the parties. The proceedings in the appeal the complainant lodged against the decision [...] to dismiss him show a breach of due process".
(note: see Judgment 2601, under 7)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2601
inquiry; right to reply; organisation's duties; termination of employment; misconduct; flaw; investigation
"Since the breach of due process in the internal appeal proceedings has held up the final determination of the matter and caused the complainant injury whatever the outcome may eventually be, the Tribunal orders the Organization to pay him lump-sum damages in the amount of 500 United States dollars."
injury; moral injury; administrative delay; judgment of the tribunal; amount; procedural flaw; material damages
"Breach of the Staff Regulations and of general principles, including breach of due process, is a flaw in the appeal proceedings which also taints the impugned decision, and for that reason the [final] decision [to confirm the complainant's dismissal for grave misconduct] cannot stand. What does stand, however, since it is only the appeal proceedings that were improper, is the prior decision [of dismissal]." "The complainant duly filed his internal appeal with the Regional Board, and the Organization shall resume the internal appeal proceedings. The competent authorities shall reconsider the internal appeal in the light of the submissions already made by WHO and by the complainant and any further submissions the parties may make in adversarial proceedings".
internal appeal; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; right to reply; termination of employment; misconduct; flaw; procedural flaw