Judgment No. 4779
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
remand; disciplinary procedure; fraud; complaint dismissed
Considerations 4 & 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, first, that the time limit within which [...] an investigation must normally be carried out was exceeded.
[...]
However, neither the time limit within which the investigation should normally be completed, nor the requirement to state the reasons why that time limit has been exceeded, is intended to have the effect of invalidating the investigation report in the event of a breach. However regrettable they may be, the anomalies in question are therefore not such as to render unlawful the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the findings contained in that report.
[...]
[T]he fact that the prescribed time limit within which the disciplinary chamber must in principle deliver its advice was exceeded does not have the effect of invalidating that advice, and therefore – as with the failure to comply with the time limit applicable to investigations, discussed above – it has no bearing on the lawfulness of the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Keywords
time limit; inquiry; disciplinary procedure
Considerations 5 & 13
Extract:
[A]lthough it is indeed a matter of principle under the Tribunal’s case law that an organisation must respect the confidentiality of private messages stored in a professional email account (see, in particular, Judgment 2183, consideration 19), that requirement must clearly be balanced against the requirements intrinsic to the need to combat fraud and, more generally, to the need to tackle misconduct on the part of officials. [...]
[I]t should be recalled that, while international organisations cannot intrude on the private lives of their staff members, those staff members must nonetheless comply with the requirements inherent in their status as international civil servants, including in their personal conduct. This principle is, for example, laid down in the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service [...].Furthermore, the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law that some private conduct may, on this account, legitimately lead to disciplinary action (see, for example, Judgments 4400, consideration 24, and 3602, consideration 13, and, with specific regard to a failure to honour private financial obligations, Judgments 2944, considerations 44 to 49, 1584, consideration 9, and 1480, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1480, 1584, 2183, 2944, 3602, 4400
Keywords
organisation's duties; conduct; disciplinary procedure; private life
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 4400, consideration 29, 3944, consideration 12, 3927, consideration 13, and 3640, consideration 29).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the fraudulent acts referred to in consideration 15 above, although involving relatively modest amounts, constitute serious breaches of the duty of honesty incumbent on any member of the staff of an international organisation. In addition, the repeated failures by the complainant to honour private obligations were, as stated in consideration 13, liable to undermine the dignity of the status of international civil servant and tarnish the reputation of ITU. As correctly pointed out in the decision of 30 July 2021, the fact that the complainant worked in the Human Resources Management Department is an aggravating factor since it can normally be assumed that staff within that department will be particularly careful to observe the ethical standards expected of the organisation’s staff members. Lastly, although the personal difficulties referred to above might certainly be considered as a mitigating factor, the facts at issue would in any case be no less serious on that account.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400
Keywords
proportionality; disciplinary measure; discretion; aggravating circumstances
|
