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 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 52
Extract:
[T]he Director-General’s decision of 3 July 2009 must be set aside, both with respect to the decision of 30 November 2007 and the complainant’s claim of harassment. In view of the restructuring of ILO/AIDS this is not an appropriate case in which to order reinstatement. However, the complainant is entitled to notional reinstatement for a period of 12 months from 1 January 2008 with the consequence that the ILO should pay her the salary, allowances and other benefits, including pension and health insurance contributions, that she would have received if her contract had been extended to 31 December 2008. The complainant must give credit for the amounts actually earned by her during the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008. As the complainant was in fact employed until the end of October 2008, the Tribunal will award interest on the resulting balance at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from 1 November 2008 until the date of payment.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207, 1984 and 2773, the disciplinary authority has a discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure justified by a staff member's misconduct, provided that the measure adopted is not manifestly out of proportion to the offence. It cannot be alleged that termination of the complainant’s appointment, the disciplinary measure chosen, was manifestly out of proportion to the degree of seriousness of the acts listed above, notwithstanding the complainant’s length of service with UNESCO and her recognised professional abilities. The Tribunal therefore considers that, in taking this decision, the Director General did not exceed the limits of his discretionary authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984, 2773
Keywords:
case law; condition; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2913
109th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
WHO requests the joinder of two complaints.
"The Tribunal finds that the two complaints were filed by two different staff members against two decisions which, although they bear the same date and are couched in almost identical terms, concern these staff members individually. Having regard in particular to the fact that the complaints are directed against disciplinary measures, the Tribunal considers that it must refuse the request for joinder (see Judgment 2343, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2343
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; date; difference; disciplinary measure; exception; identical facts; individual decision; joinder; request by a party;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]n the event of disciplinary measures, the staff member concerned enjoys a presumption of innocence and [...], in accordance with the principle in dubio pro reo, he or she must be given the benefit of the doubt (see in particular Judgment 2351, under 7(b)). The burden of proof lies with the Organization which intends to take disciplinary action against a staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2351
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary measure; general principle; in dubio pro reo; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"[T]he existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven."
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure;
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A]n e-mail was sent to all WIPO staff regarding the article that had appeared in the newspaper. The e-mail stated that the allegations in the press had proven to be false. It also stated that in light of the seriousness of the breach of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service sanctions were applied to the staff member concerned. Even though the complainant was not named, her alleged connection with the article was well known to many staff members. This constituted a violation of her privacy and was an affront to her dignity."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO Staff regulations and Staff Rules; Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 83
Extract:
"A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;
Judgment 2854
107th Session, 2009
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-20
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the decision to terminate his contract is tainted with procedural irregularities and amounts to a disguised disciplinary measure.
"In Judgment 2090 the Tribunal explained that the provisions of the Federation's Staff Regulations dealing with termination do not authorise the arbitrary termination of contracts and added, under 5, that 'there must be no breach of adversarial procedure [...] nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts'. The same applies to Article 11.4 of the Staff Regulations which deals with termination at will. Further, a decision taken pursuant to the latter must be taken in the interests of the Federation. Thus, a decision purportedly taken under Article 11.4 of the Staff Regulations in the interests of the Federation will be set aside if it constitutes a disguised disciplinary measure. A decision of that kind is not taken in the interest of the Federation but for the purpose of avoiding the procedural requirements that must be observed in the case of disciplinary measures.
"The Tribunal identified a hidden sanction in Judgment 2659 as 'a measure which appears to be adopted in the interests of the Organization and in accordance with the applicable rules, but which in reality is a disciplinary measure imposed as a penalty for a transgression, whether real or imaginary'. The Tribunal also pointed out in that judgment that '[t]he true disciplinary nature of an administrative measure that constitutes a hidden sanction is not always apparent' and that, accordingly, it is 'necessary to examine the particular circumstances in each case'.
"There are a number of matters in the present case that indicate that the decision to terminate the complainant's contract was a disciplinary measure. In this regard, the complainant was requested not to report to his office, his access to electronic files and to e-mail was terminated and he was allowed access to the Federation's building only to collect his personal belongings. Further, the letter of termination [...] referred to the complainant's refusal to accept the Secretary General's instructions and said that his 'defiance of [the Secretary General's] instructions [might] constitute grounds for termination for valid reasons with immediate effect'. The Secretary General had already stated in July 2006 that he considered the complainant had been guilty of misconduct [...] and had then warned him of the consequences of noncompliance with his formulation of principles [...]. Additionally, the Secretary General's letter [...] referred to the 'seriousness of [the] matter and the potential consequences it [might] entail'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090, 2659
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; termination of employment;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the decision to terminate his contract is tainted with procedural irregularities and amounts to a disguised disciplinary measure.
"In a case such as the present one where termination constitutes a hidden disciplinary sanction and reinstatement is not appropriate, compensation should be assessed on the basis of what would have occurred if proper procedures had been followed."
Keywords:
compensation; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; reinstatement; termination of employment;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Some of [the complainant's] requests clearly lie outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This is true, for example, of the requests that the Tribunal order the imposition of disciplinary measures on staff members of the Organization, that the complainant be sent a public letter of apology [...] or that a management audit of her department be conducted by independent experts. This is also true of the request that the Tribunal order the Organization to take steps to ensure that the complainant's immediate supervisor will no longer supervise her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 968, 1591, 2605
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; supervisor;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that, even supposing that the complainant could be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he deliberately took part in the misappropriation of funds, the setting up at his behest of an unsupervised funding system which clearly made such misappropriation possible was in itself an act sufficiently imprudent for it to constitute a serious disciplinary offence."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; official; serious misconduct;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Nor has the Tribunal found any evidence on file to suggest that the Organization displayed prejudice against the complainant. The circumstance which the complainant cites in support of this contention, namely that he was suspended from his duties on the basis of Staff Rules, cannot be construed in that way, because such a suspension is only an interim, precautionary measure which does not at all prejudge the outcome of the proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365
Keywords:
bias; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; measure of distraint; organisation's duties; provisional measures; staff regulations and rules; suspension; suspensive action;
Consideration 25
Extract:
"The Tribunal also notes that the fact - which greatly surprises the complainant - that the UN did not consider it necessary to initiate proceedings against the other staff members whose conduct was criticised by the OIOS has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to the complainant in respect of the acts of which he is personally accused, since they are proven and imputable to him (see for example Judgments 207, 1271, 1977 or 2555)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; equal treatment; misconduct; official; staff member's duties;
Consideration 28
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal points out that according to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207 and 1984, the disciplinary authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction justified by a staff member’s misconduct, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Consideration 28
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the issue of whether the measure of dismissal duly reflects the seriousness of the offences committed, the Tribunal points out that according to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207 and 1984, the disciplinary authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction justified by a staff member’s misconduct, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected. In view of the serious nature of the above-mentioned acts, and although the complainant had always been complimented on his professional abilities throughout his career, the Director-General of the FAO clearly did not exceed his discretionary authority in deciding to dismiss the complainant. The principle of proportionality has not therefore been breached.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality; termination of employment;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2752
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
'The Tribunal 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.'
In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 6
Extract:
"Statements made in legal proceedings are privileged, whether those statements are made in writing in the pleadings or orally in the course of a hearing. The consequence is that, even if defamatory, they cannot be the subject of legal proceedings or sanction. The privilege, sometimes referred to as 'in court privilege', exists, not for the benefit of the parties or their representatives, but because it is necessary for the proper determination of proceedings and the issues that arise in their course. In Judgment 1391 the Tribunal recognised that the privilege attaches to its proceedings, as well as those of internal appeal bodies. [...]
[T]he Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the privilege that attaches to statements made in the course of internal appeal proceedings or proceedings before the Tribunal has concentrated on statements made by staff members. However, the privilege is the same in the case of statements made by or on behalf of defendant organisations, and they must be allowed a similar degree of freedom in what they say and the manner of its expression. Even so, a statement will constitute a perversion of a defendant organisation's right of reply if it is wholly irrelevant and it can only serve an improper purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1391
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; confidential evidence; consequence; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; freedom of speech; iloat; internal appeals body; judicial review; language; misuse of authority; official; oral proceedings; organisation; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; purpose; reply; respect for dignity; right; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
The decision-making authority cannot disregard the opinions or recommendations it receives from advisory bodies without good reason (see Judgment 2092, under 10). Otherwise, advisory procedures would be meaningless and serve no purpose. However, such opinions or recommendations do not bind the decision-making authority to the extent of barring it from undertaking an impartial assessment of the merits of the proposals made and curtailing its obligation to examine carefully, in particular, whether the findings of fact that they contain are correct. Nevertheless, where a decision-making authority intends to disregard the recommendations of advisory bodies, it must state clearly in its decision the objective grounds that led it to opt for a divergent conclusion. In the case of a disciplinary procedure, this clearly applies not only to the appraisal of the evidence gathered but also, on the one hand, to the decision whether or not to order a penalty and, on the other, to the severity of the penalty, which should respect the principle of proportionality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation; proportionality;
Consideration 6
Extract:
When the Tribunal is seised of a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, it must quash the penalty if it is based on an error of fact or of law, overlooked some essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 2262, under 2, and 2365, under 4(a) in fine).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2262, 2365
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; mistake of law; summary dismissal;
Judgment 2719
105th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;
Judgment 2706
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant having reported that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor, the latter was verbally reprimanded. The Organization asserts that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof with respect to her allegations of harassment. "[I]n imposing a disciplinary sanction on the complainant's supervisor on account of these acts of sexual harassment, the Organization necessarily acknowledged that they had occurred. Consequently, it cannot now dispute the merits of the complainant's accusations in this respect without completely contradicting itself and casting major doubts on whether its own decisions regarding its staff are taken in a responsible manner in such a sensitive area as that of discipline."
Keywords:
burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; harassment; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; reprimand; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;
Judgment 2698
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he measure of suspension constitutes [...] an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the merits regarding a possible disciplinary measure, but which is designed to safeguard the interests of the Organization pending the outcome of an investigation to ascertain whether the accusations have any substance or not."
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; inquiry; investigation; organisation's interest; provisional decision; purpose; suspensive action;
Judgment 2659
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A hidden sanction is a measure which appears to be adopted in the interests of the Organization and in accordance with the applicable rules, but which in reality is a disciplinary measure imposed as a penalty for a transgression, whether real or imaginary. The true disciplinary nature of an administrative measure that constitutes a hidden sanction is not always apparent. It is therefore necessary to examine the particular circumstances in each case where there is an allegation that an administrative measure is a hidden sanction."
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; enforcement; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; misconduct; organisation's interest; purpose; written rule;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the disciplinary measure imposed on him lacks proportionality. "In this respect, it may be noted that lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature (see Judgments 203 and 1445). In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see Judgment 937)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203, 937, 1445
Keywords:
breach; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; discretion; exception; judicial review; misconduct; proportionality; termination of employment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."
Keywords:
breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]he four persons with respect to whom the complainant seeks the imposition of sanctions have filed applications to intervene in these proceedings and, in the alternative, seek to have their applications treated as complaints. These applications must be refused. So far as concerns the applications to intervene, none of the applicants is in the same position in fact or law as the complainant (see Judgment 2237)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2237
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; difference; disciplinary measure; intervention; refusal; request by a party; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; right;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
