Judgment No. 1133
Decision
1. THE DECISION OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1990 IS QUASHED.
2. THE CASE IS REMITTED TO THE WHO, WHICH MAY EITHER RESUME THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OR PAY THE COMPLAINANT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION. WHICHEVER COURSE IT FOLLOWS, THE COMPLAINANT MAY FILE A FURTHER COMPLAINT WITH THE TRIBUNAL.
3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT A PROVISIONAL AMOUNT OF 1,500 UNITED STATES DOLLARS.
4. IT SHALL PAY HIM 200 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
5. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was charged with serious misconduct. An inquiry was held to which the complainant was not invited to give evidence. The Tribunal holds that "the failure of the WHO to afford the complainant an opportunity to be present at the Personnel Department's taking of statements and to put questions to the witnesses amounts to breach of due process. The Tribunal stated the material principle in Judgment 999 : 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." [See Judgment 2601, under 7.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 2601
Keywords
evidence; right to reply; due process; termination of employment; misconduct; serious misconduct
| 
