Judgment No. 3318
Decision
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The FAO shall pay the complainant 30,000 United States dollars in damages for all injuries suffered.
3. It shall also pay him costs in the amount of 5,000 dollars.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he claim for disciplinary measures against one of the supervisors implicated in the complaint cannot be granted. Indeed, such a request is, in any event, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. (See Judgments 2811, under 15, or 2636, under 13.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 2811
Keywords
competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings
Consideration 7
Extract:
This question must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of these acts intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), the main factor being the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate him/her. The Tribunal’s case law has always recognised that an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgments 2100, under 13, and 3233, under 6). An unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour are not enough to prove that harassment has occurred (see Judgment 2861, under 37).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2861, 3233
Keywords
harassment
Consideration 5
Extract:
In its reply, the Organization maintains that the Director-General was right in considering that the Appeals Committee had overstepped its mandate. To support this view it merely refers to the case law concerning the limitations to which the Tribunal’s own power of review is subject. In so doing, it commits an error in law. As a matter of fact, the power of such a review body extends to the overall re-examination of all matters submitted to it and is not subject to the same restrictions that might apply to the judicial review by the Tribunal. The only exception to this is if the rules governing the review body provide for such restrictions.
Keywords
internal appeals body; judicial review
| 
