Judgment No. 2014
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS QUASHED.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT ARREARS OF SALARY AND EMOLUMENTS UNTIL THE DATE ON WHICH HE WOULD HAVE RETIRED, IN NOVEMBER 1999.
3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 1,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COMPENSATION FOR MORAL INJURY.
4. IT SHALL ALSO PAY HIM 1,000 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
5. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
evidence; admissibility of evidence; confidential evidence; communication to third party; disclosure of evidence; adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; disciplinary procedure; witness; due process in disciplinary procedure
"The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."
evidence; admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; lack of evidence; presumption of innocence; due process; organisation's duties; staff member's interest
"In taking the decision which is now under challenge the Director-General gave no reasons himself. He did not say that he based his decision on the [Joint Appeals] Board's report and recommendation. [...] Assuming that he did rely on the Board's report, the Tribunal is satisfied that in view of the contradictory statements of the Board and the unorthodox way in which they conducted their enquiry, the complainant was not accorded due process and accordingly the impugned decision cannot stand."
impugned decision; motivation