Judgment No. 3314
Decision
1. The decision contained in the letter of the Director-General dated 21 October 2011, so far as it relates to HBA Appeal No. 736, is set aside.
2. The Organization shall pay the complainant compensation for moral damage in the amount of 25,000 United States dollars.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant 2,000 dollars in costs.
4. The Organization shall also pay the complainant the 4,000 dollars in costs, which the RBA recommended for the proceedings before it.
5. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
Summary
The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; delay; decision quashed; compensation; harassment
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages. The Tribunal has stated that a complainant must provide evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to succeed in such a claim. The complainant has not adduced such evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the breaches that the Tribunal found, for which the sum of 25,000 United States dollars is awarded.
Keywords
burden of proof; harassment; material damages; prejudice
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law requires an international organization to investigate allegations of harassment linked to the workplace thoroughly, in accordance with due process and the protection of the person accused. The investigation should be prompt and thorough; the facts determined objectively and in their overall context; the law is to be applied correctly and the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed, should not be stigmatised or victimized on that account. (See, for example, Judgment 2973, under 16.) An international organization is also required to ensure that its investigative and internal appeal bodies for this purpose are functioning properly. (See, for example, Judgment 3069, under 12.)
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2973, 3069
Keywords
inquiry; organisation's duties; harassment; investigation
Consideration 25
Extract:
[T]he Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment. The Organization also breached its duty to provide an efficient internal redress process as a result of inordinate delay in the proceedings before the RBA and the HBA. The complaint is therefore well founded on these grounds and the complainant is entitled to damages.
Keywords
due process; harassment
| 
