Judgment No. 3944
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
termination of employment; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the sole purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether there are grounds for initiating disciplinary action.
Keywords
inquiry; adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; investigation
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment without his or her consent constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order to decide whether there may have been a breach of an acquired right, it is therefore necessary to determine whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3571, under 7). In this case, the Tribunal considers that the abolition of the Joint Advisory Committee does not affect a fundamental and essential term of employment. Moreover, it cannot generally be accepted that the rules on disciplinary action are an integral part of the fundamental and essential terms of employment which induce a person to apply for a post or to remain in the international civil service.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 3571
Keywords
advisory body; acquired right; disciplinary procedure; discontinuance
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that in any case, even if the complainant did not attend the witnesses’ interviews, his right to be heard was not breached, since he was informed of the content of their testimony and given an opportunity to comment on it when he received the charge letter of 28 February 2014 (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3640, under 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords
testimony; adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure
Consideration 12
Extract:
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 Judgment 3640, under 29). In this case, the Tribunal finds that the complainant engaged in repeated fraudulent practices over several months. In view of the serious nature of the acts committed by the complainant, his dismissal cannot be deemed disproportionate, notwithstanding the various factors which he puts forward for consideration. This plea will therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords
proportionality; disciplinary measure; fraud
| 
