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 3725

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  [P]ursuant to Administrative Circular 87, the task of the JDC is to determine whether the facts and conclusions of IOS provide sufficient bases of proof of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt, and, in that way safeguards a staff member’s right to due process as it provides a forum in which the staff member may defend herself or himself and test the evidence provided by IOS against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; due process; evidence;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  It is well established in the case law that where misconduct is denied, the burden falls upon the Organization to prove misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt and the staff member is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgment 2879, under 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2879
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3704

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the former Director of the ILO Office in Berlin to apply to her the sanction of warning.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; warning;
  

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  If the complainant did not agree with the Director’s instruction, her recourse was to ask for written instructions. If the Director confirmed the instruction, she was obliged to obey the instruction she had received. As the complainant did not follow the instruction, the Director had the discretion to issue the warning to the complainant, which she did.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3682

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for gross misconduct.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant was [...] informed of the precise allegations against him and was provided with summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the investigator. The complainant was given three opportunities to be heard, respond to the allegations against him and provide his version of events before a finding of gross misconduct was reached [...]. Thus, the complainant’s due process rights were respected even though he was not permitted to attend witness interviews and participate in the examination of the evidence (see, also, Judgment 3083, consideration 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; due process; inquiry; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3649

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [I]t is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. 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” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3640

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  [W]hile an international organization cannot rely only on an internal investigative report in taking disciplinary measure against a staff member, such a report may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if the indications of misconduct that it contains justify that course (see, for example, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When an organisation initiates proceedings in the light of such a report, it is not obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in the report, but must simply ensure that the person concerned is given the opportunity to reply to the findings it contains so as to respect the rights of defence (see Judgment 2773, under 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 2773
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; due process; inquiry; investigation;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; en banc review; plenary judgment; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  Considerations 29-31

  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.
  In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the acts of sexual harassment of which the complainant was accused are undeniably serious on account of their nature and their repetition. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence in the file that their gravity is exacerbated by two particular circumstances which must be emphasised here. First, it appears from the investigation report, inter alia, that many of the persons subjected by the complainant to the unwelcome behaviour in question were young women who did not hold a permanent appointment and who were therefore in a precarious situation which made it difficult for them to protest, let alone report it, especially as the complainant often had the power to influence the progress of their career. Secondly, it is plain from the file that, [...] after protests from several of his colleagues, the complainant had received various warnings about the inappropriate nature of his conduct. Thus, even assuming that the complainant had not instinctively realised it, he could not thereafter have been unaware that his behaviour towards the women who had to work alongside him was perceived by them to be improper, offensive and extremely unpleasant. This did not, however, prevent him from repeating his reprehensible conduct on many occasions, since further incidents occurred [...].
  Having regard to these various considerations, and even though the complainant’s record of service with the Organization was otherwise excellent, the Tribunal finds that, in this case, the Director-General did not adopt a disproportionate disciplinary measure when she decided on the complainant’s summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; proportionality; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3602

  
  121st Session, 2016
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former employee of the WTO, contests the Director-General’s decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Considerations 25 and 27

  Extract:

  The Tribunal considers that in the particular circumstances the WTO had a duty of care towards the complainant that went beyond the mere statement that he had not established that his illness was responsible for his behaviour. That duty required the WTO to seek further medical advice concerning the complainant's medical condition that would have assisted it to have made a more informed assessment of a causal connection and consequential decision in the matter. This assessment should also have been weighed in determining proportionality. Having not done so, the impugned decision was unlawful [.]
  [...]
  [T]he impugned decision must be set aside to the extent that it found that summary dismissal was a proportionate sanction. The matter will be remitted to the WTO for reconsideration.

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; disciplinary measure; medical fitness; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3581

  
  121st Session, 2016
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3575

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of discharge from duty with due notice.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; notice; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3496

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of his suspension and the reprimand that he subsequently received.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; suspension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3364

  
  118th Session, 2014
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully impugns on the grounds of a procedural flaw the decision to maintain his dismissal for misconduct.

  Consideration 27

  Extract:

  "The complainant is seeking reinstatement in WHO. However, in the circumstances of the case there are no grounds for ordering this. According to the Tribunal’s case law, reinstatement is inadvisable when an employer has valid reasons for losing confidence in an employee (see Judgment 2034, under 11), as is the case here. [I]t is clear that the complainant admits having breached his duty of confidentiality, and whatever the reasons he gives in an attempt to justify having done so, this itself undermines the necessary relationship of trust between a staff member and the Organization."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2034
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; reinstatement; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3312

  
  117th Session, 2014
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; motivation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3297

  
  116th Session, 2014
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant was dismissed for misconduct following a disciplinary investigation, which found that he had forged and falsified documents.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; evidence; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3295

  
  116th Session, 2014
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
  

  Keywords:

  case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 512, 907, 999, 1082, 1133, 1212, 1228, 1251, 1384, 1395, 1484, 1661
  

  Keywords:

  case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3289

  
  116th Session, 2014
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  breach; censure; complaint allowed; consultation; disciplinary measure; flaw; misconduct; outside activity; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3227

  
  115th Session, 2013
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose a disciplinary measure on him for having falsified his productivity figures.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; fraud;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3200

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; downgrading; due process in disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3162

  
  114th Session, 2013
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his appointment which, in his view, is flawed for breach of due process.

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  "An allegation of dishonesty is an allegation of unsatisfactory conduct that may result in disciplinary action. As such, it must be dealt with in accordance with the organisation’s prescribed procedures (see Judgment 1724, under 14). That was not done in this case. This failure deprived the complainant of an opportunity to defend himself against a serious allegation and reflects a serious breach of his right to due process. The breach is particularly egregious having regard to the complainant’s work and the nature of the allegations."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1724
  

  Keywords:

  breach; disciplinary measure; due process; general principle; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3126

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Free Trade Association
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  "The rule against double jeopardy does not prevent disciplinary and non-disciplinary consequences attaching to the same acts or events. However, it does preclude the imposition of further disciplinary measures for acts or omissions that have already attracted a disciplinary sanction."

  Keywords:

  cause; consequence; definition; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; individual decision; organisation's duties;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  In the proceedings before the Advisory Board and in these proceedings, the organization has raised matters in purported justification of the complainant’s dismissal that go beyond the grounds specified in the notice of dismissal.
  "This is not permissible. To allow that course would seriously infringe on a staff member’s right to be heard before a disciplinary measure is imposed."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; breach; difference; disciplinary measure; grounds; iloat; notice; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3123

  
  113th Session, 2012
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "[A]n international organisation is bound by the rules which it has itself laid down, as long as it has not modified or repealed them (see Judgment 1896, under 5(d)), and this principle is especially relevant in disciplinary matters."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1896
  

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; general principle; organisation's duties; patere legem; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3106

  
  113th Session, 2012
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100
  

  Keywords:

  breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >