Judgment No. 4308
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
termination of employment; misconduct; complaint dismissed
[C]onsistent case law has it that a staff member is presumed to be aware of the organization’s rules and regulations to which she or he is subject (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 6, and 2962, consideration 13).
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2962, 4247
duty to know the rules
The complainant’s second argument is that there were irregularities in the investigation process. The difficulty with the complainant’s pleas in this respect is that they constitute a series of assertions about what should have happened by way of investigative steps, what analysis should have been undertaken and criticism of the conclusions reached at various stages in the process. However, no reference is made in support of those assertions to any normative legal document or the Tribunal’s case law that establishes that such steps should have been taken, the analysis undertaken as suggested or any particular conclusion reached.
burden of proof; inquiry; investigation
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3640, consideration 29, “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area.” The disciplinary measure of dismissal was not disproportionate, particularly having regard to the complainant’s alteration of the email of Ms D. This was a manifestation of dishonesty and fraud and it was open to WHO, as the disciplinary authority with a power to decide the disciplinary measure, to view the totality of the complainant’s conduct as misconduct warranting dismissal.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3640
proportionality; termination of employment; disciplinary measure