Introduction

On 27 October 1998, I, Patrick Reis-Ekelund (henceforth “Complainant”), acting in my capacity as Administrative Assistant charged with parts of the financial follow-up of the OIE’s regional offices, informed Mr Guy Jannot, the Head of the OIE’s Administrative and Financial Department (henceforth “Head of Department”), of discrepancies in the accounts of an OIE Regional Representation.

On 26 February 1999, Dr Jean Blancou, Director General of the OIE (henceforth “Director General”), terminated the Complainant’s employment with the OIE, with the motivation that the Complainant’s services were no longer satisfactory. At the time of handing over the dismissal note, the Director General responded negatively to the Complainant’s plea that the Director General halt the dismissal and re-examine the dismissal decision, and the Director General instead acknowledged the Complainant’s right to challenge the decision before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization. This refusal has been confirmed by the absence of a reply to the Complainant’s written record of this event.

The Complainant claims that the Director General’s decision to terminate his employment is in irregular form, is tainted with procedural irregularities, abuse and illegality and is based on incorrect facts, and that the decision is an integral and unitary part of the harassment and hidden disciplinary measures, as evidenced by the behaviour and claims of the OIE’s managers, to which the Complainant was subjected to during the four month period preceding the Director General’s decision.

1. Facts of the case

1.1 Relevant basic legal foundations

1.1.1 - Article 1.2 of the OIE Staff Regulations states:

Staff members shall be placed under the authority of the Director General who may assign them to any position in the Office, with due regard to their qualifications and capacities. They shall be responsible to him in the discharge of their duties.

I solemnly undertake to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions with which I have been entrusted in the capacity of Director General of the Office, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the sole interests of the Office in view, without seeking or accepting any instructions concerning the performance of my duties from any Government or any authority outside the Office and to respect the provisions of the Basic Texts of the Office at all times.

I solemnly undertake to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions with which I have been entrusted in the capacity of international civil servant of the Office, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the sole interests of the Office in view, without seeking or accepting any instructions concerning the performance of my duties from any Government or any authority outside the Office.

The Director General may terminate the employment of a staff member in accordance with his contract of employment or at any other time, if either the necessities of the department require abolition of the position or reduction of the staff, or if the services of the individual concerned cease to be satisfactory, or if he is unable to fulfil his functions for health reasons.

Any member of the Central Bureau -- meaning, as stated in the Staff Regulation’s section “Scope and purpose”, the Director General and all the staff members -- who considers that action taken against him conflicts with the provisions of these Regulations or the Staff Rules (provided for in Article 11.2 of the said Regulations) or with the terms of his contract of employment, may request that the matter be re-examined.

The Parties may agree that the case be submitted to an independent person, designated by the President of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), to recommend a solution for the case. This person may hear the parties as well as the witnesses.

Any controversy between the Office and a member of the Central Bureau concerning the application of provisions of Staff Regulations or his contract of employment, which could not be solved on the application of Article 10.1., shall be submitted for the final decision to the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO, in accordance with Article 11.5. -- sic, should probably be II.5 -- of the statutes of this Tribunal, if the Governing Body of the ILO is in agreement therewith.

The clauses necessary for applying these Regulations will take the form of Staff Rules.

- follow-up the administration, finances and activities of the regional co-ordinations of the OIE and certain regional programmes such as the SEAFMD Campaign;
- prepare documents for donor countries;
- prepare and follow-up missions, including the budgetary aspects;
- draft, translate and proof-read documents and correspondence, especially in English;
- perform administrative and financial follow-up of some seminars;
- assist the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department and perform all other assignments delegated by him or his Deputy.

     Article 40.12. - Professional appraisal notes of the staff members

(a) Professional appraisal notes are established for all members of the staff, in the form prescribed by the Director General and by the persons designated by him, before the end of the probationary period, once a year thereafter. The concerned Department may also, when it so deems necessary, establish professional appraisal notes concerning one of its members and transmit it to the Director General.

(b) Every staff member will be offered the possibility to discuss with his immediate superior all professional appraisal notes concerning him which have been established by virtue of paragraph (a) above. He then signs the note to indicate that he has read them.

(c) If a staff member wishes to submit, pro memoria, comments on his professional appraisal notes, without thereby contesting their content, he submits his observations in writing, by hierarchical channels, at the latest five working days after signing the note. These comments are kept in the concerned’s individual file with the professional appraisal note to which they relate.

(d) If the concerned wishes to contest an appraisal contained in these notes, he submits, in writing, to the Director General, by his superior, and at the latest five working days after receiving the note, a concise exposé of his objections to the note and the facts and conclusions upon which he bases himself.

If the Director General can not solve the problem in such a way as the concerned withdraws, in writing, his contestation within ten working days of receiving the contestation, he refers the matter as quickly as possible to the Administrative Commission. The decision of this Commission is passed, in writing, to the concerned by the Director General.

The Tribunal has repeatedly affirmed that, along-side and superseding an organisation’s internal rules, there exist binding international civil service principles, with which an organisation must also comply. These principles concern the necessity for, among other things, due and fair process, proper inquiry before decision, safeguard of dignity and reputation, and basic respect for  the staff member of an international organisation. Below follow select quotes from Tribunal rulings which the Complainant considers relevant to the present case:

The Tribunal has often affirmed the principle of good faith by which international organisations are bound and their duty to treat their staff members with consideration and fairness. (Judgement 1479, under 12)

At all events the onus of proof lies on the Organisation to bear out its allegations and insinuations and not ... on the complainant to show them to be untrue. In the absence of any proof of their accuracy the assumption must be that they are untrue. (Judgement 1340, under 11.)

Decisions taken by the Organisation are subject to review on grounds such as bias, bad faith, malice and abuse of authority. When seeking to defend his interests by impugning any such decision, an employee is entitled to allege and attempt to establish such grounds. (Judgement 1391, under 8.)

1.2 Sequence of events

In December 1997, the Complainant was employed, with a two year contract, within the Administrative and Financial Department of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE). His position was newly created to respond to the increasing workload of the OIE headquarters due to the increase in the number and activity of the OIE’s regional offices.

The Complainant’s three month probationary period passed without incident. No criticism was made on his behaviour or work. During this period the Complainant set in place administrative and financial procedures relating to his areas of duties and established good working relationships with his counterparts. During the following eight months the Complainant’s employment continued peacefully. The Complainant’s services appeared to be appreciated by the heads of the regional offices, the Head of Department and the Director General. As evidence of this the Complainant cites the following:

In May 1998, during the OIE International Committee’s General Session, the head of the regional office in Tokyo, Dr Yoshihiro Ozawa, offered the Complainant a gift and expressed great satisfaction with the improvement in the services and the attention that he was receiving since the Complainant took up his position. In June 1998, the Director General addressed a note to the Complainant expressing the OIE President’s and his own appreciation of the Complainant’s “professional competence and devotion to the reputation of the Office” as manifested during the year and the preceding General Session (cf. Document 1[1]).

In July 1998, the Head of Department verbally expressed satisfaction with the Complainant’s services and granted the Complainant a loan corresponding to two months wages (cf. Document 2). In September 1998, the Director General passed a note from a veterinary association, for which the Complainant had organised a conference at the OIE headquarters, in which the association expressed gratitude for the Complainant’s services (cf. Document 3). On at least two occasions the head of the OIE’s eastern European activities, Dr Nikola Belev (also President of the OIE Regional Commission for Europe and Member of the OIE’s Administrative Commission), offered the Complainant gifts of spirits and expressed appreciation with improved services and response speed due to the Complainant’s presence and competence. Likewise, the head of the OIE’s office in Bangkok, Dr Laurence Gleeson,  expressed great appreciation of the Complainant’s services and offered gifts and meals during his visits to OIE headquarters.

Quarterly, the Complainant reviewed the expense reports of four regional offices and, if they appeared to be correct within the sense of the OIE’s financial regulations, he passed them on to the OIE’s internal book-keeper for further treatment.

At several occasions during 1998, the Complainant informed his hierarchy of the often dubious nature of expense report materials from the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas. After the third quarter of 1998, the Complainant observed that there appeared to be a problematic discrepancy between the Representation’s income-, expenses-, and holdings-balances at 30 September 1998. On 27 October 1998, the Complainant informed his Head of Department of this situation (cf. Document 4). The Complainant was asked if he could find an explanation for the discrepancy. Unable to do so, the Complainant responded negatively and he informed the OIE's internal accountant that he could not sign-off on the quarterly report as it, and/or those preceding it, appeared to be dubious, and thereby risk being held responsible for accepting a potentially fraudulent expense report. During the following few weeks the Complainant repeated his inability to vouch for the expense report and underlined that he could not accept that the impression was given to the OIE’s external accountant that the Complainant had in any way, tacitly or explicitly, accepted the expense report.

Immediately the attitude towards the Complainant of his hierarchy became noticeably less appreciative. An outside book-keeper was brought in and redid the Complainant’s verification for the Regional Representation. This book-keeper confirmed the Complainant’s findings and identified several thousand dollars worth of receipts that indeed were of dubious nature. That there was indeed reason for concern regarding the Regional Representation’s finances is evidenced by the Head of Department’s letters, addressed to the OIE Regional Co-ordinator for the Americas, of 26 November 1998 and 2 December 1998 (cf. Document 5 and Document 6, respectively).

During this period, the nature of assignments given to the Complainant became more clerical compared with the work the
Complainant had been doing throughout the year, stricter dead-lines were imposed on his activities, and in general the atmosphere became one of hostility. This unpleasantness lead up to a meeting with the Head of Department, which the Head of Department called for, on 26 November 1998, where, for the first time since commencing his employment in December 1997, the Complainant received a number of criticisms against his work and behaviour, and received comments on his professional background and new or changed operational working instructions which were clearly degrading and humiliating. Following this meeting, on 27 November 1998, the Complainant submitted a note (cf. Document 7) to his Head of Department in which he recorded the meeting and the instructions that he had received.

Although the Complainant had in his note, after affixing observations, assured that he was prepared to follow the instructions received, his working situation continued to be hostile. On 8 December 1998, the Complainant found on his desk a note, dated 7 December 1998 (cf. Document 8), from the Deputy Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, Mr Gary Sutherland (henceforth “Deputy”). This note had been copied to both the Head of Department and the Director General, and in it the Deputy expressed serious and tendentious criticism against the Complainant’s work and professional attitude. In his note, the Deputy employed untruths and presented events, which had taken place during the preparation of two meetings held two and three weeks previously, on 13 and 24 November 1998, respectively, in a selective and damaging manner.

The Deputy was present at OIE headquarters from Friday 13 November to 10 December 1998, when he left for vacation until Monday 28 December 1998, with only one absence (the three days from 23 to 25 November 1998) to participate in the 24 November 1998 meeting. The Complainant was present at OIE headquarters throughout the period 13 November 1998 to 8 December 1998.

Considering the contents and style of the note and the fact that though both the Deputy and the Complainant had been present throughout the relevant period (discounting the Deputy’s three day absence) the Deputy never made his “comments” in person, the Complainant considered the note, and the distribution of it to his superiors, to be a clear, premeditated and malicious personal attack. The Deputy had not once, although he and the Complainant saw each other several times a day, raised his concerns about the two meetings in question.

Also, considering that the Deputy’s note did not appear to comply with the rules for Professional Appraisal Notes laid down in Article 40.12 (a) of the OIE Personnel Rules (cf. 1.1.9 above), which prescribes the form and procedure to be followed for such notes, and that the Complainant had never heard of any other form than that of the note attached to this brief (cf. Document 14), the Complainant considered the Deputy’s note to be illegal within the framework of the OIE’s Staff Regulations.

Deeming that he could not leave the note without some form of acknowledgement and reply and that he must clearly mark his questioning of its legality, the Complainant, hoping and appealing for intervention, decided to inquire if the Director General legitimated the note before the Complainant responded to it. The Complainant submitted a letter to the Director General to this effect, on 8 December 1998 (cf. Document 9). To this letter, the Complainant attached copies of the Deputy’s note and of his note of 27 November 1998.

During a working meeting with the Director General, on 10 December 1998, the Complainant asked the Director General if he had any comment on the events outlined above. The Director General assured the Complainant that he was not the object of any ill will and that recent instructions were only intended to improve the Complainant’s work. The Director General dismissed and refused to discuss the Complainant’s feelings that he had become the target of unfounded and unjust criticism after reporting accounting anomalies relating to the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas. The Director General said that the Complainant would receive a written reply concerning the Deputy’s note of 7 December 1998.

On 21 December 1998, having not received the promised note, the Complainant sent a reminder note (cf. Document 10) to the Director General, once again attaching copies of previous materials.

On 23 December 1998, a written reply (cf. Document 11) was given that the Head of Department would respond, and his note followed on 29 December 1998 (cf. Document 12). The Head of Department gave his version of the meeting of 26 November, legitimised the Deputy’s note, and added two accusations: 1) that the Complainant had translated and submitted a draft agreement to the Thai Government, and 2) that the Complainant did “not succeed in mastering completely the different aspects” of the financial follow-up of the Regional Representations.

On 12 January 1999, during a working session with the Director General, the Complainant raised the issue of his new (from end of November 1998) working conditions, which he stated he found degrading. The Director General made no comment.

On 13 January 1999, the Complainant responded (cf. Document 13) to the various accusations made against him by the Head of Department and his Deputy in their notes of 29 December 1998 and 7 December 1998, respectively. The Complainant proved, through verifying with and identifying the correspondence of the period, that the accusations concerning Thailand were false and responded as best he could to accusations of the twisted and defamatory nature of those of the Deputy. The Complainant stated that he did not understand what the comment about “aspects” of the financial follow-up referred to and he encouraged the Head of Department to discuss the matter at his earliest convenience.

During the period 14 January 1999 to 15 February 1999, the Complainant’s Annual Professional Appraisal (henceforth
“Appraisal”) form was completed. On this form the staff member first notes his observations. Then the Head of Department and the Director General make their observations. The form is returned to the staff member who may express agreement with or objection to the judgement of his superiors (cf. 1.1.9 above).

In his form the Complainant struck an initial conciliatory note, conveying his often repeated desire for good working relationships and his willingness to conform with received instructions. On 15 February 1999, the Director General handed the Appraisal form to the Complainant (cf. Document 14). The Complainant found that the Head of Department maintained his accusations on the Thai issue, maintained the legitimacy, in form and content, of the Deputy’s note, and repeated his claims that the Complainant’s services in the field of financial follow-up were insufficient. In the appraisal the Director General wrote that the Head of Department’s observations about “important difficulties” put the Complainant’s future with the OIE in question.

Shocked by the incongruity and unfairness of the situation: that the Director General based a threat to the Complainant’s continued employment on accusations which the Complainant had either proven to be incorrect, unclear or tendentious, or requested clarification of to enable him to understand them and to be able to respond constructively, the Complainant noted on the Appraisal form his disappointment and concluded that he may have to draw the entire matter to the attention of other bodies. He submitted this form by means of registered mail on 15 February 1999.

On 17 February 1999, the Head of Department called the Complainant, telling him to come see him immediately in his office. The Head of Department asked for confirmation that the Complainant objected to the Appraisal. The Complainant replied in the affirmative. The Head of Department stated that he would, according to the Staff Rules, refer the matter to the OIE’s Administrative Commission, which was meeting at OIE Headquarters at the time (from 17 to 19 February 1999), and that the Complainant might receive a summons to meet with the Commission or one of its members.

On 18 February 1999, the Complainant found on his desk a hand-written message (cf. Document 15) from the Head informing him that the President of the OIE’s Administrative Commission and its International Committee, Dr Norman Willis
(henceforth “President”) would receive him, if he so wished, in the President’s office. During this meeting, which lasted for only 15 minutes, as the President needed to return to the ongoing Administrative Commission meeting, the Complainant described, as time permitted, the situation in much the same way as in the text above.

The President stated that he would read through all the correspondence (from 27 November onwards), of which the Complainant provided him full copies to complement whatever materials he had received from the OIE’s management, and it was decided that the Complainant return to meet the President again the following morning. At this second, likewise brief, meeting on 19 February 1999, the President told the Complainant that he would instruct the Director General to receive the Complainant so that the Complainant may present all the materials supporting his position, as well as instruct the Director General to ask the Complainant for a written summary of his observations concerning the finances of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998.

On 22 February 1999, the Complainant found on his desk a letter from the Director General, dated 19 February 1999 (cf.
Document 16) on his desk, and he was summoned to a brief meeting with him. The Complainant was informed that the OIE’s Administrative Commission had been informed of the matter of his Appraisal and that the Commission had expressed its confidence in the Director General’s position concerning the Complainant. There was no indication what the position of the Director General was in the note and the Director General did not elaborate.

The Director General instructed the Complainant to submit a note outlining his disagreement with the Appraisal and his observations on the accounts of the Regional Representation for the Americas. The Complainant’s note was to be submitted to the Administrative Commission for deliberation and decision. During this brief meeting the Complainant stressed that he was distressed that the situation had been driven to this point, he protested against having become a target of harassment after simply doing his job on the accounting issue, and he asked for the Director General’s intervention to bring about a return to normal working conditions. The Director General made no further comment.

The Complainant submitted this note on 24 February 1999 (cf. Document 17). On 26 February 1999, the Director General summoned the Complainant and handed him a letter (cf. Document 18) informing him of his decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment with the Office International des Epizooties. The reason given for this decision was Article
8-1 of the Staff Statutes: the Complainant’s services were not satisfactory. The Complainant was instructed to cease
functions that day, to go collect payment for the three month notice period, which the Director General excused him from
performing, from the Head of Department, and to gather his belongings and leave. The Complainant stated that the Director General’s decision left him little option but to defend his rights before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization and the Complainant urged the Director General to halt the dismissal and to hold a real discussion on all matters with him. The Director General refused to do so. This refusal has been confirmed by the absence of a reply to the Complainant’s written record of this event (cf. Document 19).

In the dismissal note, the Director General made reference to “... the observations that have been made to you during our different meetings or in writing ...”. The Complainant is at a complete loss at fathoming which “meetings” the Director General can honestly be referring to, as the Director General has always refused to enter into discussion with the Complainant, or indeed to which of his written observations he may be referring to.

2. Complainant’s Arguments

2.1 Receivability of the claim by the Tribunal and the Claim

Considering that the Director General of the OIE:

- has never given the Complainant the chance to present to him in person all the information and documents relating to matters described above;
- has never asked the Complainant for either written or verbal clarification of any of his written statements and submissions;
- has never responded to any of the Complainant’s requests or pleas for intervention;
- at the time of handing the Complainant his decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment, once again refused to discuss matters with the Complainant;
- has not contradicted the Complainant’s record of this event; and,
- considering the abrupt and brutal manner in which the Complainant was told to leave the office to never return,

the Complainant concludes that this matter has moved beyond the possibilities expressed in Article 10.1 (cf. 1.1.5 above), dealing with possible re-examination, of the OIE Staff Regulations. The Complainant does not wish for an independent person to be appointed, and he submits this matter, in accordance with Article 10.2 of the OIE Staff Regulations (cf. 1.1.6 above) and Articles II.5 and VII.1 of the Statutes of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, to the said Tribunal.

The Complainant claims that the Director General’s decision to terminate his employment is in irregular form, is tainted
with procedural irregularities, abuse and illegality and is based on incorrect facts, and that the decision is an integral and
unitary part of the moral harassment and hidden disciplinary measures, as evidenced by the behaviour and claims of the
OIE’s managers, to which the Complainant was subjected to during the four month period preceding the Director
General’s decision.

Below, the Complainant shall argue in support of the claim made in the paragraph above.

2.1 - The decision is in irregular form and is tainted by procedural irregularities and illegality

The Complainant claims that the OIE has committed breach of at least one article of its Staff Rules, namely Article 40.12, and at least two articles of its Staff Regulations, namely articles 1.2, and 1.9, and that it has failed to comply with its duty to respect basic rules protecting international civil servants.

2.1.1 - Breach of Article 40.12 of the OIE Staff Rules

The Complainant recalls that Article 40.12(d) of the OIE Staff Rules stipulates that

(d) If the concerned wishes to contest an appraisal contained in these notes, he submits, in writing, to the Director General, by his superior, and at the latest five working days after receiving the note, a concise exposé of his objections to the note and the facts and conclusions upon which he bases himself.

If the Director General can not solve the problem in such a way as the concerned withdraws, in writing, his contestation within ten working days of receiving the contestation, he refers the matters as quickly as possible to the Administrative Commission. The decision of this Commission is passed, in writing, to the concerned by the Director General.

I am sad to note that my replies to comments and accusations made by Messrs Guy Jannot and Gary Sutherland, as well as my assurances that all instructions have been taken to heart, have gone completely ignored, and I am outraged that I have been the object of harassment ever since I reported obvious discrepancies in the accounts of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at the end of the third quarter 1998. It is with regret I conclude that I may have to draw this matter to the attention of other bodies, within and outside the OIE.

date: 15 February 1999         signature: Patrick Reis-Ekelund

My duties within the Administrative and Financial Department have been largely in line with my job description and I have enjoyed working with and being of service to the Regional Co-ordinators, outside parties, my hierarchy and colleagues. Unfortunately, I feel there has been a serious communications problem and that the responsibilities and status of my position have been diminished towards the end of the year (cf. our notes of 27/11/98, 7/12/98, 8/12/98, 21/12/98, 23/12/98, 29/12/98 and 13/01/99). I trust this situation has now been resolved and that my services will be appreciated and rewarded more commensurably with their value to the Office.

date: 14 January 1999         signature: Patrick Reis-Ekelund

The Complainant recalls that Article 40.12(d), second paragraph, stipulates that:

If the Director General can not solve the problem in such a way as the concerned withdraws, in writing, his contestation within ten working days of receiving the contestation, he refers the matters as quickly as possible to the Administrative Commission. The decision of this Commission is passed, in writing, to the concerned by the Director General.

Considering the implied suspensatory nature of the procedure stipulated by Article 40.12(d), which, in order to be legally
meaningful, must prohibit any disciplinary or dismissal decision on behalf of the Director General, as the matter has been removed from his authority until the moment the Administrative Commission reaches a decision, the breach of Article 40.12(d) and the abusiveness of the decision to dismiss the Complainant are all the more manifest.

2.1.2 - Breach of Article 1.2 of the OIE Staff Regulations

The Complainant recalls that Article 1.2 of the OIE Staff Regulations stipulates that:

     Staff members shall be placed under the authority of the Director General who may assign them to any position in the
     Office, with due regard to their qualifications and capacities. They shall be responsible to him in the discharge of their
     duties.

The Complainant has indeed been held responsible by the Director General who has deemed the Complainant’s services to have become unsatisfactory and has terminated the Complainant’s employment with the OIE.

Being responsible to someone, in this case the Director General of the OIE, does not only place duty and accountability on the person held responsible, in this case the staff member/Complainant; it also places a corresponding and balancing duty on the Director General, namely the duty to hear the staff member and give him the opportunity to respond to judgements made, or being made, on him, and to defend himself by hearing and responding constructively to his reasoned and documented case.

Such a hearing must be fair and performed in a spirit of loyalty and objectivity, which means it can not only be by means of written statements, observations or judgements, as such written statements can only be summaries of evidence and arguments. The hearing must also be performed by means of in-person, direct, active, discussion. This is especially necessary when the staff member’s professional conduct, reputation, and (present as well as future) employment are at stake.

That the Director General neither sought, encouraged nor accepted to participate in such discussion represents a dereliction of duty on his part to respect Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations and thus constitutes a denial of the Complainant’s right to fair and due process as stipulated by the Article.

2.1.3 - Breach of Article 1.9 of the OIE Staff Regulations

The Complainant recalls that the Director General, upon commencing his duties, in virtue of Article 1.9 of the Staff Regulations, signed a declaration in which he bound himself to:

     ...solemnly undertake to ... respect the provisions of the Basic Texts of the Office at all times.

This declaration places a duty upon the Director General which all concerned parties, Member States as well as Staff Members, should be able to have faith and confidence that the Director General will fulfil in full.

Articles 1.2, and 40.12 of the OIE Staff Regulations and Rules, respectively, are part of the Basic Texts of the OIE. This is
evidenced by the OIE publication “Basic Texts”, which includes the Staff Regulations, and by Article 11.2 of the Staff Regulations which is the legal basis for the Staff Rules and to which the preamble of the said Rules refers. The Director General has disrespected, and condoned disrespect of, these regulations and rules, and the OIE is therefore also in breach of Article 1.9 as regards the matter of the dismissal of the Complainant.

2.1.4 - Breach of the duty of all international organisations to respect basic rules protecting the rights of international civil servants

The events described in this brief and the documents attached to it clearly show that the OIE is in breach of the duty, a duty repeatedly affirmed by the Tribunal, of all international organisations to treat staff members with a spirit of good faith and that the OIE is in breach of its duty to treat the Complainant with consideration and fairness (cf. 1.1.10 above - Judgement 1479).

The OIE has shown blatant disregard of the Complainant’s right to have, at all stages of a potential, developing or open conflict, his case treated objectively. The Complainant has not been treated in a  fair, objective, dignified and rule-abiding manner, and he alleges that this is due to bias and bad faith against him due to his professional decision on the accounting matter (cf. 1.1.10 above - Judgement 1391).

A staff member must at all times be able to feel that his work is respected and that he can bring both good as well as bad news, in the Complainant’s case accounting problems, to the attention of his superiors without being humiliated, de facto downgraded and dismissed. The management of the OIE has clearly struck a severe blow to any such employer-employee confidence. The Complainant can not be held responsible for the findings made while performing his contract- and procedure-bound duties to verify accounting, as well as not be made a target of harassment for insisting to perform those duties with professional integrity and conscience as Article 1.10 of the Staff Regulations (cf. 1.1.3 above) entitles and obliges him to.

The Complainant recalls that at none of the occasions that he and the Head of Department, or he and the Director General, met for working meetings or when the Complainant raised these matters, did the managers of the OIE see fit to discuss the Complainant’s view or evidence. This is in breach with the principle that “the onus of proof lies on the organisation to bear out its allegations and insinuations”. (cf. 1.1.10 above - Judgement 1340).

So, not only has the OIE broken its own Staff Rules in the matter of dismissing the Complainant, it has also neglected to respect an international organisations duty to treat its staff with care and with respect for their personal and professional dignity.

2.2 - The decision is based on incorrect facts

No other reason for the dismissal was given by the Director General than the general statement that the Complainant’s services had ceased to be satisfactory. One must assume that the reasons why the Complainant’s services were no longer deemed satisfactory must be the three items evoked by the Complainant’s Head of Department in the Appraisal. These points were repeated, with some variation, from the Head of Department’s note of 29 December 1998. The Complainant had responded to these points in his note of 13 January 1999.

1. The Complainant proved that the accusations on the OIE-Thai Agreement were completely false. Nevertheless, in somewhat changed form, this matter was still held against the Complainant;
2. The Complainant gave evidence to show that the Deputy’s note was of a tendentious, slanted and untrue nature. The Complainant indicated that he considered that the Deputy’s note was illegal within the framework of the OIE’s Staff       Regulations. Nevertheless, this note’s contents was still held against the Complainant
3. The Complainant had since over a month requested clarification what exactly he did not master in the domain of financial follow-up, what the “aspects” were that he did not understand, but he had never received information on what his shortcomings actually were. Also this accusation was still held against the Complainant.

That the accusations had been slightly altered when they were included by the Head of Department in the Annual Professional Appraisal does not change that they had been responded to in full and should have become the object of further substantiation by the Head of Department when he put their amended versions in the Appraisal. The Head of Department did not substantiate in any way.

The Complainant never received any reaction to his information on the Thai issue, to his reply concerning the Deputy’s
accusations, or to his inquiry what was meant by “aspects” of the accounting that the Complainant supposedly did not
comprehend. Never was the Complainant, or has he since, been told that his observations concerning the financial situation of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998 were incorrect. Never has there been a straightforward discussion about these matters. Never have any of the Complainant’s responses to accusations, proven to be false or tendentious, been contradicted, in writing or verbally, or been given any constructive attention whatsoever.

Had the Head of Department, his Deputy, or the Director General actually wished to see correction on behalf of the Complainant, it is reasonable to expect that they would have elected to discuss matters with the Complainant. This never happened. This is clear evidence of bias against the Complainant and disinterest in dealing with matters with integrity and justice.

These factors are evidence of a clear and determined course of action, initiated after the Complainant made his report on accounting discrepancies, creating reasons for summary dismissal with the legitimating facade of the Annual Professional Appraisal procedure and the involvement of the OIE Administrative Commission.

2.3 - The decision is part of the pattern of harassment and hidden disciplinary measures taken against the Complainant

When judging the legality and abusiveness nature of the decision to dismiss the Complainant, it is important to consider events preceding the actual decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment. The Tribunal has decided that

Decisions taken by the Organisation are subject to review on grounds such as bias, bad faith, malice and abuse of authority. When seeking to defend his interests by impugning any such decision, an employee is entitled to allege and attempt to establish such grounds. (Judgement 1391, under 8.)

When considering the abrupt changes ordered by the Head of Department to the Complainant’s working situation, as evidenced in his note of 27 November 1998 to the Head of Department and in  Head of Department’s note of 29 December 1998, and the absence of stated solid reasons for these changes, one must wonder what was the real motivation behind these instructions and the absence of reaction to any of the Complainant’s answers and refutations to accusations made.

Obviously, it is impossible to provide proof of the intent and motivations of the Head of Department, his Deputy or the Director General. One must nevertheless, out of necessity, draw probable conclusions about such motivations from the sequence of events and the written evidence at hand. It is hardly by accident, and most noteworthy, that, after eleven months of criticism-free service, the Complainant became the object of a barrage of criticism, accusations, innuendo and humiliating changes to the status of his position following his report on possible financial wrong-doings and his refusal to condone them.

That the changes to the Complainant’s status and working situation were humiliating, and probably meant to be so, is clear. When one, with no reasonable motivation and after such a long period, suddenly curtails the methods of communication, authority to take initiative, and autonomy of a staff member, this can only be perceived as a punishing and humiliating act by the staff member.

That the new instructions from the Head of Department were intended to cause unease in the Complainant is clear from the complete absence of solid reasons for the changes, and the complete absence of replies to any of the Complainant’s observations or implied objections to the new instructions received. The clear linking of the issue of the Complainant’s satisfactory service and his future wage level with the matter of closing the accounts of the OIE’s Regional Representations at 31 December 1999, is indicative of a desire on behalf of the Head of Department to elicit “good behaviour”. “Good behaviour” on a matter where the Complainant had expressed his opposition to commit a professional act that he considered to be incorrect and in breach both with legitimate accounting practices and with the OIE financial regulations he was supposed to safeguard.

These factors are evidence of a clear and determined course of action, initiated after the Complainant made his report on accounting discrepancies, creating reasons for the dismissal which was notified on 26 February 1999. This evidence is supported by a review of inconsistencies in the behaviour and claims of the Head of Department, his Deputy and the Director General:

1. How come the Complainant’s work in general, and in the field of financial control in particular, was a problem to be
raised by Head of Department on 26 November 1998 and not before? The Complainant had successfully passed the test
of his three month probationary period and another eight months thereafter. The Head of Department’s criticism did not
concern a lowering of the quality of the Complainant’s work or a change in his working habits, methods or results. The
Head of Department has not contradicted the Complainant’s statement that the Complainant had served the OIE in the
same manner ever since taking up his post in December 1997.

2. How come the Deputy felt it was called for to raise the issue of, as he alleges, problems concerning meetings held two to three weeks previously and not sooner after the meetings? If the Complainant had indeed been the source of problems with the first meeting, why did he not raise the issue with the Complainant immediately thereafter in order to avoid the
same problems reappearing? Why the vicious and tendentious tone?

3. If the Deputy’s note was indeed legal within the framework of OIE Staff Rules, why has this not been stated clearly by
his superiors? It is of course possible that the Director General has approved several possible manners to deliver
professional appraisals than the one described in Document 14; if that is the case, why was the Complainant not
informed of this alternative form and procedure, in the notes of 23 December 1998 and 29 December 1998?

4. If the Head of Department’s allegations on the Complainant’s alleged misconduct in the issue of the OIE-Thai Agreement were made in good faith, why has the Complainant’s reasoned and evidenced refutation of them gone completely ignored? One would expect that the Complainant’s proof that the accusations are erroneous would, if overall motives on behalf of the Head of Department were inspired by a spirit of fairness and objectivity, be met with an apology or at least silence - but not so, the accusation is restated in slightly altered form and used to indicate professional misconduct. Considering the seriousness of the accusations, one must ask: if the accusations on this matter were actually true, why was the Complainant not immediately warned, suspended or otherwise disciplined?

5. If the Complainant’s work concerning financial follow-up and “different aspects” of the finances of the OIE regional
representations was unsatisfactory, why had this not been drawn to his attention earlier? Had the quality of the
Complainant’s understanding of accounting and the quality of his work suddenly deteriorated after performing
verification of expense reports covering twelve verification cycles? The Complainant does not know the answers to
these questions, as his Head of Department never saw fit to take the time to elaborate on the issue during the two month
period between when he first made the claim and the moment the Director General terminated the Complainant’s
employment. Had it already been decided to get rid of the Complainant at the time of the first claim of his inability to
master “different aspects”? Or before?

It seems reasonable to consider the Director General’s decision to dismiss the Complainant a form of hidden disciplinary action, due to bias against the Complainant after his report on, and refusal to approve,  the expense report of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas

3. Concluding remarks and plea

In this brief, the Complainant has provided evidence supporting his claim that the Director General’s decision to terminate his employment is in irregular form, is tainted with procedural irregularities, abuse and illegality and is based on incorrect facts, and that the decision is an integral and unitary part of the moral harassment and hidden disciplinary measures, as evidenced by the behaviour and claims of the OIE’s managers, to which the Complainant was subjected to during the four month period preceding the Director General’s decision.

The Complainant has provided evidence that he has been denied his rights under the rules governing the OIE and under the universal rules governing the international civil service, that he has also been subjected to continuous, stressful and humiliating pressure and treatment for a long period, and that it is reasonable to consider that this situation and the decision challenged are direct results of bias against him following his position on the described accounting matter.

Furthermore, the Complainant’s future employment prospects in respect to his training and experience in general, and within the international civil service in particular, have been seriously damaged. To have been dismissed for the reason of no longer being satisfactory can only be interpreted by potential future employers as being the result of fault on behalf of the Complainant. The involved OIE managers must be aware of this fact, which compounds and aggravates the illegality and abusiveness of the dismissal decision of 26 February 1999.

Significant moral and material damages have been caused to the Complainant by the OIE. Therefore,  the Complainant requests that the Tribunal, by virtue of Article VIII of its Statutes and its jurisprudence:

1. quashes the challenged decision;
2. orders the OIE to pay substantial compensation to the Complainant to mark the important material damages done to the Complainant’s career prospects and professional reputation as well as to mark the gravity of the abusiveness of the challenged decision;
3. orders the OIE to pay substantial compensation to the Complainant to mark the moral damages done to the Complainant as well as to mark the gravity of the abusiveness of the challenged decision;
4. orders the OIE to issue a written apology, signed by the Director General personally, for the abusiveness of the decision to dismiss;
5. orders the OIE to pay to the Complainant his costs relating to this claim;
6. orders the OIE to reinstate the Complainant in his position.

The exact form and amounts of the compensation demanded have been noted on the Complaint Form to which this brief is attached.

                                                                                                                            Paris, 6 April 1999
 
 
 

                                                                                                                             Patrick Reis-Ekelund
 

[1] A total of 19 documents are referred to in this Brief. They are listed on and attached to the Complaint Form.