Judgment No. 367
Decision
1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION OF 1 APRIL 1975 IS QUASHED. 2. THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND SEVENTH CLAIMS ARE DISALLOWED AS FALLING OUTSIDE THE TRIBUNAL'S COMPETENCE. 3. THE FIFTH CLAIM IS ALLOWED AND THE ORGANIZATION IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COMPLAINANT AS COMPENSATION 12,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS. 4. THE SIXTH CLAIM IS ALLOWED AND THE ORGANIZATION IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COMPLAINANT 4,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS AS COSTS.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Often distress and disappointment cannot be avoided but, where [they], can be, [they] should be. As in all organisations, the staff member must take the rough with the smooth and there are bound in management to be pieces of clumsiness or tactlessness which can be sufficiently smoothed over by apology or explanation."
Keywords
moral injury; organisation's duties; working relations
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Just as it is implicit in every contract of service that the staff member shall be loyal, shall treat his superiors with due respect and shall guard the reputation of the organization, so it is implicit that the administration in its treatment of staff members shall have a care for their dignity and reputation and shall not cause them unnecessarily personal distress."
Keywords
professional injury; general principle; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; supervisor; organisation's reputation
Summary
Extract:
After 20 years of "laudable service", the complainant, a "valuable member of [the organization's] staff" was transferred. The organization, in its treatment of the complainant, failed in its obligation to show due regard for his dignity and reputation; the Director-General's apology did not remedy the situation.
Keywords
moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; transfer; satisfactory service
Consideration 13
Extract:
"When outstanding considerations are overlooked, it suggests that the matter is not being examined objectively; and this in turn suggests in the case of competent examiners [...] that it is prejudice rather than lack of perception that is at work." In the present case "it was not on the evidence a prejudice against the complainant but a prejudice for [someone else]."
Keywords
evidence; bias
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant alleges prejudice and failure to take full account of the facts. "Since the existence of either ground would justify the interference by the Tribunal with a discretionary decision, it is convenient to consider the case as it is presented on these two grounds. [...] Failure to take full account of the facts is the wider ground [...]."
Keywords
transfer; judicial review; discretion; disregard of essential fact; bias
Consideration 16
Extract:
Some elements of the moral prejudice - the new assignment offered the complainant less congenial and responsible work - "would not attract compensation if the decision to assign him had been valid". Other aspects, "for example, the humiliating way in which the transfer was effected [...] would attract compensation whether or not the decision was valid."
Keywords
moral injury; assignment; transfer
|