Judgment No. 4608
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests WIPO’s decision to maintain Office Instruction No. 10/2016, promulgating, inter alia, the discontinuation of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Section.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
harassment; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he alleged episodes of harassment against officials other than the complainant are outside the scope of the present complaint for lack of locus standi.
Keywords
locus standi; harassment
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law, or whether they constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4405, consideration 2, 4004, consideration 2, and 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4180, 4404, 4405
Keywords
abolition of post; reorganisation; discretion
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is […] well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias (see Judgment 4097, consideration 14) and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations (see, for example, Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 2472, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 3380, 4097
Keywords
bias
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal holds that, although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving her or his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organisation, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see, for example, Judgments 3912, consideration 13, and 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3912
Keywords
prejudice
|
