Judgment No. 4449
Decision
1. WHO shall pay the complainant an additional 5,000 euros by way of moral damages.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant 5,000 euros for legal costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; harassment
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the complainant advances several new pleas that were not raised in the internal proceedings. According to the Tribunal’s case law, “a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas [...] before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body” (see, for example, Judgment 4009, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; new plea
Consideration 6
Extract:
[B]y quoting Judgment 3314, consideration 25, concerning WHO, the complainant alleges that the delay to process the harassment complaint amounted itself to continued harassment. Judgment 3314, consideration 25, reads as follows: “In summary, the Organization breached Staff Rule 1230.3.3, the complainant’s contract and its duty to provide her with a congenial working environment. In effect, the Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment.” In that case, it was the organization’s failure in its duty to provide a congenial harassment-free workplace that had caused the complainant a further harassment. In the present case, the complainant separated from WHO shortly after filing her harassment complaint. Her situation is therefore not comparable to that of the complainant in the case leading to Judgment 3314. Also, there is no evidence to prove that actions of the Administration in the internal procedures constituted harassment.
Keywords
harassment; precedent; delay in internal procedure
|
