Judgment No. 4453
Decision
1. The decision of 1 August 2018 to summarily dismiss the complainant and the decision of 1 July 2019 to dismiss his appeal are set aside.
2. In furtherance of what is said in consideration 18 of the judgment, the complainant shall deliver to UNWTO his claim for material damages, UNWTO shall reply within 60 days and within that period UNWTO shall pay to the complainant such sums, if any, it admits to be due. In the event that the complainant’s claim for material damages is not satisfied by this process, the parties are to forward to the Tribunal their respective documents to enable the Tribunal to finally determine and assess such material damages as may be payable.
3. UNWTO shall pay the complainant 40,000 euros moral damages.
4. UNWTO shall pay the complainant 8,000 euros costs.
Summary
The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal
Consideration 6
Extract:
These remarks do not come to grips with what Mr R. said nor provide a sound basis for rejecting his evidence. To say someone is “evidently personally offended by what he considers to be an attack to his mandate” is firstly equivocal and secondly and more importantly does not provide, of itself, a firm foundation for saying that Mr R.’s account of past events cannot, or even should not, be accepted as true. It is not at all obvious that if a person is personally offended in the circumstances just discussed, that would “[prevent] [her or] him from being a reliable and objective witness” let alone someone who is giving a false account of past events.
Keywords
evidence; witness
Consideration 14
Extract:
In one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203 at consideration 2, the principle of proportionality was discussed in the context of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. The Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the penalty to be proportionate to the fault and that, in that case, the complainant’s misconduct could not be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 203
Keywords
proportionality; mitigating circumstances; disciplinary measure; summary dismissal
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts that, generally, the conduct and attitude of a hierarchical superior does not exculpate a member of staff who has engaged in misconduct even though it is approved by that superior. It also accepts, as decided in Judgment 3083, that a member of staff whose duties included dealing with and managing the funds or other property of an organisation should adhere to normative legal or other instructional documents concerning how those funds and property should be disbursed and managed. Moreover, a failure to do so could well warrant summary dismissal. Additionally, that failure could be characterised as a serious breach of trust.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3083
Keywords
mitigating circumstances; supervisor
| 
