Disciplinary measure (507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary measure
Total judgments found: 192
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4234
129th Session, 2020
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
Judgment 4227
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, was summarised in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the “Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 4148
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for five working days.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; suspension;
Judgment 4063
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its consistent case law according to which a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgment 3336, consideration 6). In this case, the complainant submitted his detailed appeal to the Appeals Board on 11 March 2015 – following the public delivery of Judgment 3398 – and the decision of the Director-General on this appeal was issued only on 2 August 2016, that is almost seventeen months later.
Given the nature of the case, which concerns a termination for disciplinary reasons, the Tribunal considers that such a period of time was excessive and that, in this regard, moral damages should be awarded to the complainant in the amount of 1,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; disciplinary measure; moral injury;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal cannot be affirmatively satisfied that the decision of the Director-General would have been the same had she only considered the charges specifically presented as such in the list of charges referred to the JDC. The termination decision, which was taken unlawfully, must therefore be set aside for this reason.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; termination of employment;
Judgment 4058
127th Session, 2019
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant is no longer working for the Organization. No order was sought by the complainant to remit the matter to the Organization to consider again whether the complainant was guilty of misconduct and, if found guilty, what sanction should be imposed in light of a finding of misconduct. Accordingly, no order remitting the matter will be made.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; material damages;
Judgment 4052
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to subject him to disciplinary proceedings after his separation from the EPO and to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of a reduction by one third in the amount of his retirement pension.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure;
Judgment 4051
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that disciplinary decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to only limited review. In Judgment 3297, consideration 8, the Tribunal stated that it will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the fact findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, consideration 3). In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the complainant did indeed engage in the conduct of which he was accused (see, for example, Judgments 3297, consideration 8, and 3875, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3872, 3875
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review; proportionality;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The President’s decision to request the complainant to undergo a further medical examination to determine whether his medical condition may have guided his behaviour and affected his accountability for his actions accorded with the exercise of the EPO’s duty of care towards the complainant, as was recently explained by the Tribunal in Judgment 3972.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of care; illness;
Judgment 4050
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step.
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
The complainant claims that his actions did not cause any identifiable prejudice. The Tribunal observes that the complainant obstructed the proper functioning of the system of internal remedies by his unjustified absence from the July session, his undermining of the Chairperson’s authority to take organizational decisions and his refusal to finalize the cases assigned to him which had been pending prior to the July session before leaving the IAC. The complainant does not acknowledge the negative impact of his uncooperative behaviour on the functioning of the IAC, which consequently adversely affected the interests of the other members of the IAC.
[...] The Tribunal finds that in [his] decisions [...] the President properly motivated his reasoning for deviating from the Disciplinary Committee’s recommendation of the sanction of relegation in step by one step. Furthermore, the [...] mitigating factors identified by the complainant are unconvincing. [T]he provisions were lawful, his absence was unjustified, his behaviour was intentional, and furthermore, his willingness to attend the September session was conditional. Taken as a whole, the complainant’s behaviour constituted misconduct, which was aggravated by the fact that he was an IAC member who would be expected to have a high level of respect for the rules, for confidentiality, and for the proper functioning of the appeal system. [T]he President maintained the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Committee (relegation in step), but after considering the severity of the misconduct, he concluded that relegation by three steps was justified. The Tribunal considers the contested sanction not to be disproportionate in light of the above considerations.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; proportionality;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Judgment 4011
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that disciplinary decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to only limited review. In Judgment 3297, consideration 8, the Tribunal stated that it will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3872
Keywords:
disciplinary measure;
Judgment 3972
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
Consideration 15
Extract:
While, in the present case, the Disciplinary Committee, but not the President when deciding initially to dismiss the complainant, did advert to the possibility that the complainant was suffering from a mental illness, it discounted entirely the possible nexus because the information available was insufficient. In circumstances such as the present, the President’s response to the complainant’s request for review was inadequate. The Tribunal concluded in Judgment 3887 that the EPO breached its duty of care towards the complainant in that case. So it is in this case as well. That duty of care would involve the EPO assessing whether the alleged misconduct can be entirely explained by the complainant’s mental illness, and also whether the complainant was entitled to benefits based on an invalidity stemming from his mental illness and perhaps his service with the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of care; illness;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; suspension;
Consideration 17
Extract:
The claim that the decision to downgrade the complainant violated the principle of proportionality is unfounded. Regarding the severity of the sanction, the case law has it that “[t]he 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, for example,Judgment 3640, under 29). The complainant’s refusal to attend the IAC hearings and sessions was particularly onerous for the Organisation considering the heavy backlog of internal appeals that the IAC needed to confront. Keeping in mind that the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that the sanction imposed is not disproportionate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; downgrading; misconduct;
Consideration 17
Extract:
The ultimate decision to impose a serious disciplinary sanction was made in circumstances where the complainant was incapacitated by serious mental health issues. This should be reflected in the amount of those damages. The Tribunal assesses those damages in the sum of 30,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; illness; moral injury;
Judgment 3968
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; downgrading; misconduct; staff representative;
Considerations 26 and 27
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes the complainant acted carelessly, with regard to a very sensitive subject, conscious of the probability that her statement would highly offend other staff members and would create great unrest among colleagues, damaging the work environment. The Tribunal observes the complainant’s actions were serious and wrong and cannot be justified by an alleged good purpose.
[T]aking into account the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary authority and, in particular, the complainant’s refusal to apologize to Mr A. and the serious consequences of that behaviour on Mr A.’s health, the Tribunal finds that the contested disciplinary measure is not disproportionate and that the complainant’s twentieth complaint must also be dismissed (see Judgment 3640, under 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; misconduct; proportionality;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed: “the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow the recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Considerations 11 and 15
Extract:
Article 52 of the Service Regulations dealt with incompetence. It provided: “(1) Subject to Article 23 of the Convention, a permanent employee who proves incompetent in the performance of his duties may be dismissed.
The appointing authority may, however, offer to classify the employee concerned in a lower grade and to assign him to a post corresponding to this new grade. [...]"
[...]
A third and related issue arising from the language of Article 52(1) is that once this assessment is undertaken by or on behalf of the President, an offer should have been made to the complainant identifying the new lower grade and the post to which she might be assigned. It was not. Reasonably clearly this step of making an offer is intended to ensure that a permanent employee proven to be incompetent in the position she or he then held, has the opportunity of discussing with the EPO what work she or he might do within the EPO into the future. In the ordinary course, one would expect that a decision to offer to classify the permanent employee in a lower grade and assign her or him to a new post would be significantly more attractive to the staff member concerned, found to be incompetent, than a decision to dismiss. Nonetheless important considerations may arise for the affected staff member including alterations to remuneration and likely career paths within the EPO. Indeed it is not possible to entirely discount, once an offer was made, negotiations or at least discussions taking place between the affected staff member and the EPO about what the EPO proposed. In a case such as the present where mental health issues were involved, some form of agreed medical assessment might also be appropriate to gauge competency given that the underlying aim of this process is to place the affected permanent employee in a position where she or he is competent and contributing to the overall work of the EPO.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 52 of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading; medical opinion;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The legal question was whether an appropriate lower grade could be identified into which the complainant would be classified and ultimately the assignment of the complainant to a post corresponding to this new grade. That process plainly involved the identification of an appropriate post. Obviously the identification of the grade, the reclassification and the identification of a post and assignment to it would depend on a number of factors. They would include the skills and qualifications of the complainant notwithstanding that they did not then render the complainant competent to perform the work of an examiner at grade A3. Also relevant would be an assessment of the level of competency of the complainant which would inform the decision about the grade in which the complainant should be classified. The level of the competency would influence or even determine the extent to which the complainant was reduced in grade. Similar considerations would bear upon the identification of a post in the new grade to which the complainant could be assigned. The President did not undertake an exercise with this legal framework in focus even if, as a practical matter, some or perhaps even all these considerations were in play. This is a legal flaw in the impugned decision.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading;
Judgment 3953
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading and to recover from her undue payments through monthly deductions from her salary.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; downgrading;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the question of the complainant’s health condition and the Disciplinary Committee’s failure to seek an expert medical opinion, the Tribunal notes that the Disciplinary Committee took account of the complainant’s state of health as a mitigating factor when deciding the proportionality of the recommended sanction.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; health reasons; mitigating circumstances;
Consideration 14
Extract:
Regarding the severity of the imposed sanction, the Tribunal recalls that, according to a long line of precedent the decision-making authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction to be applied to a staff member whose misconduct has been established. However, as stated in Judgment 3640, under 29 and 31, that discretion must be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality. In the present case, the complainant’s downgrading was not disproportionate to her misconduct. The complainant took financial advantage from the contested unlawful conduct with which she was charged and which was established. This is a serious breach of the duty of honesty incumbent on international civil servants and her state of health has no bearing on the merits of the impugned decision. In light of the above considerations, the complaint must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; downgrading; fraud; proportionality;
Judgment 3944
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
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:
disciplinary measure; fraud; proportionality;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; termination of employment;
Judgment 3887
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s refusal to fulfill his obligations with regard to his work as an examiner is well-established. However, the President’s decision to dismiss the complainant under Article 93(2)(f) of the Service Regulations is vitiated by the fact that neither the President, nor the Disciplinary Committee could have made a proper assessment of the allegations without taking into account whether the complainant acted intentionally, and in control of his faculties, or if the complainant suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from behaving in accordance with his obligations as a permanent employee.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of care; health reasons; intention of parties; misconduct; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 3880
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; suspension;
Judgment 3852
124th Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that the evidence against [the complainant] has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and no admission of guilt is necessary for a finding of guilt.
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that, based on the evidence, the Director-General could properly determine that the misconduct was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He therefore properly exercised his discretion to dismiss the complainant summarily, as he did.
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; termination of employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
