Conduct (492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Conduct
Total judgments found: 119

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

• Judgment 2601

  
  102nd Session, 2007
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 9-10

  Extract:

  "It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
  [...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725
  

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2553

  
  101st Session, 2006
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
  "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
  "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
  In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922
  
  

  Keywords:

  breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2515

  
  100th Session, 2006
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".

  Keywords:

  conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2507

  
  100th Session, 2006
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "Criticism of a subordinate's performance and behaviour, even in inappropriately strong language, does not, of itself, evidence harassment or prejudice. Certainly, that is so where [...] the performance and behaviour in question are confirmed by other senior and responsible officials. That being so, and there being no other evidence to support the complainant's claims, the allegations of harassment and prejudice must be rejected."

  Keywords:

  bias; conduct; different appraisals; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity; supervisor; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2468

  
  99th Session, 2005
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 18-19

  Extract:

  The complainant's appointment was terminated. "It may be concluded from all the circumstances of the case that, even though the complainant's conduct towards his supervisor was not what might be expected of an international civil servant and would probably have justified preventive action on the part of the Organization, the reasons given to establish that the complainant's abilities and performance were unsatisfactory did not suffice to justify terminating his appointment for unsatisfactory services.
  The complainant's [...] claim for retroactive reinstatement, with all legal consequences, within the Organization's staff [is well founded]."

  Keywords:

  complainant; conduct; consequence; insubordination; official; organisation's duties; qualifications; reinstatement; right; supervisor; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2427

  
  99th Session, 2005
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  "According to the case law [...], the Tribunal is competent to review the lawfulness of any decision by the Director-General to terminate a staff member's probation. In particular, it may determine whether that decision is based on errors of fact or law, or whether essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or whether clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts, or, lastly, whether there has been an abuse of authority. The Tribunal may not, however, replace with its own the executive head's opinion of a staff member's performance, conduct or fitness for international service (see Judgment 318, considerations).
  Other cases mention, as further grounds on which the Tribunal will review such decisions, a formal or procedural flaw, or lack of due process (see, for example, Judgments 13, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183 and 1246) which, it has been noted, must be substantial to invalidate an end-of-probation termination decision."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 13, 318, 687, 736, 1017, 1161, 1175, 1183, 1246
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; case law; competence of tribunal; conduct; contract; decision; decision quashed; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; fitness for international civil service; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; probationary period; procedural flaw; termination of employment; tribunal; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2370

  
  97th Session, 2004
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  The complainant submitted a grievance alleging moral harassment to the Joint Panel. The Tribunal considers that "the Joint Panel's conclusions were not based on all the circumstances which should have been taken into consideration in order to enable the deciding authority to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts. The Director General's decision [...], informing the complainant that, since the Joint Panel had reached the conclusion 'that the various aspects of [her] supervisor's conduct [did] not constitute harassment' the Office could not allow her 'harassment claim', must therefore be set aside and the case must be sent back to the Organization and referred again to the Joint Panel, unless a settlement is reached between the complainant and the Office."

  Keywords:

  claim; conduct; decision; disregard of essential fact; exception; executive head; internal appeal; internal appeals body; refusal; settlement out of court; supervisor;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2261

  
  95th Session, 2003
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15-16

  Extract:

  The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."

  Keywords:

  concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2207

  
  94th Session, 2003
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The affair the complainant had with a national of the country of the duty station led to a series of incidents. "In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that it was in the organization's interest to terminate the complainant's assignment in Nairobi in order to maintain an untroubled working atmosphere in the service and to preserve its good relations with the host country. However, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law (see, in particular, Judgments 269 and 1231), the defendant could not terminate the complainant's appointment solely on that basis, without having taken appropriate steps to find him a new assignment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1231
  

  Keywords:

  case law; conduct; duty station; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2114

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2048

  
  91st Session, 2001
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 12 and 15

  Extract:

  Sending a threatening letter to a colleague is unacceptable conduct by an international civil servant. The Tribunal is of the opinion that this is a valid reason for not renewing a contract.

  Keywords:

  conduct; contract; decision; disciplinary measure; freedom of speech; grounds; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; staff member's duties; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2009

  
  90th Session, 2001
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The complainant was suspended without pay for three months after being accused of making a false declaration and submitting false information to a court of law. The Joint Disciplinary Board found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his wrongdoing. "The Tribunal is satisfied that the Joint Disciplinary Board was entitled, having weighed the evidence, to draw the conclusions it did. It found that the complainant's explanations were not credible and rejected them. Where doubt does not exist, the question of the benefit of the doubt does not arise. So the complainant cannot succeed on the plea that his employer was bound to accept that he had made a mistake. The Board was fully justified in its findings."

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; benefit of doubt; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fitness for international civil service; general principle; misconduct; misrepresentation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1977

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "The complainant's contention that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence is wholly without merit. He defrauded his employer of substantial sums of money in circumstances that left no room for doubt that he both knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong. When his actions came under suspicion, he falsified documents in an attempt to justify himself. His actions fell far below the standards expected of any employee let alone the high standards required of an international civil servant. the penalty of dismissal was amply warranted."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; misrepresentation; proportionality; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "The complainant on several occasions filed claims and received reimbursement for duty travel in business class while he had in fact travelled in economy class, pocketing the difference. [...] There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that this fraud was condoned or approved by the Agency and [...] his suggestion that his fraudulent practice was widespread amongst other Agency personnel, which is likewise not supported by any evidence at all, is wholly irrelevant: even if all the Agency's officers had been defrauding it in the same manner as the complainant, that would constitute no excuse for him. Where several persons commit the same crime, the guilt of one is not lessened by that of the others."

  Keywords:

  conduct; evidence; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; official travel; practice; serious misconduct; travel expenses;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1972

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 3-4

  Extract:

  The complainant, a director of a department, was made aware of two e-mails which were written in highly indecorous terms and, although private, commented on the running of the department. The Staff Union Committee protested against what it considered to be an invasion of privacy. The complainant did not respect the order to use discretion issued by the Director of Personnel. The Director-General, considering the complainant incapable in his function as Director of a department to maintain a stable and productive working environment, transferred him to a post of special advisor. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1018 [...], it is the duty of the head of any international organisation to take whatever measures can reduce tensions among his staff, and a transfer in the interests of the service may be an appropriate way of settling a conflictual situation. [...] However, since it cannot be regarded as disciplinary, the measure must, as the case law prescribes, heed the staff member's dignity and good name and not cause him undue suffering. Clearly, in this case the complainant was bound to view the measure as downgrading him. However, the fact that the organization was at pains to find him an assignment in keeping with his competence if not his wishes, to maintain his grade and to exercise the utmost discretion in dealing with the matter, shows that everything was done to protect his dignity as a senior official."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1018
  

  Keywords:

  conduct; discretion; downgrading; executive head; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; transfer; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1925

  
  88th Session, 2000
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "There can be no doubt that theft by an official of an international organisation of goods belonging to that organisation constitutes serious misconduct which may warrant summary dismissal."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1878

  
  87th Session, 1999
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 30

  Extract:

  The complainant called her supervisor a fascist while giving the nazi salute. She was dismissed summarily. "In the Tribunal's view, while the complainant's conduct was not such as to be expected from an international civil servant, nevertheless it was not so serious as to warrant summary dismissal. Her words were intemperate, spoken in the heat of the moment to a superior. That is unacceptable. There was an insulting gesture used twice which was particularly hurtful to [her supervisor], a German. Again, that is unacceptable. But on the other hand an apology was offered the same evening and again the next morning and a written acceptance was generously given by [the supervisor]. In the opinion of the Tribunal qualifying the incident as serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal would be a clearly mistaken conclusion to draw from the facts. Therefore, the disciplinary measure imposed was so disproportionate as to amount to a mistake of law."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; mistaken conclusion; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; supervisor; termination of employment; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1848

  
  87th Session, 1999
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant questions the right of the insurance company to which she is affiliated to contact her physicians directly to seek information. "The law is clear that [the insurance company] is entitled to any information which identifies the nature of the alleged illness and allows it to determine whether the prescribed treatment is appropriate and necessary [...] Of course the complainant is entitled to require that such information only be made available to [the insurance company's] medical adviser and be treated by the latter in confidence but she is not entitled to withhold from them any right of access whatsoever to the required medical information. Her unwillingness to allow such access goes against her duty to deal in good faith with her insurers."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
  

  Keywords:

  conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1831

  
  86th Session, 1999
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The complainant was summarily dismissed from the organization for serious misconduct. "The complainant argues that the severity of the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Given the evidence of deep-rooted fraud and corruption in the office for which he was responsible, the misconduct was serious and the sanction fully justified."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1828

  
  86th Session, 1999
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  "Even though the amount at stake was not large, an intent to defraud the organization is a most serious offence. The organization may expect the highest standards of integrity from its staff; it could not possibly just overlook the fraud; and there was nothing disproportionate about dismissing [the complainant] for the misconduct she had committed."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1796

  
  86th Session, 1999
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The complainant was reassigned because of his alleged poor attendance and time-keeping. "The [Organization's] treatment of him looks like punishment for conduct it disapproved of and for low output. So there should first have been due disciplinary process affording him full safeguards."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; output; punctuality; right to reply; safeguard; transfer; unsatisfactory service;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >