Disciplinary procedure (509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary procedure
Total judgments found: 123
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
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.
Considerations 17-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends with greater cogency that he was never provided with the full content of the witness statements forming the basis of the accusations against him, nor was he informed of the witnesses’ names. It is true that the witness statements were not appended to the report drawn up at the end of the investigation and, as mentioned in a footnote in that document, the identity of the witnesses was deliberately not disclosed. [...]
[T]his strict observance of confidentiality by UNESCO might be seen as departing from the Tribunal’s established case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers). [...]
[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).
In the instant case, the investigation report contained an extremely detailed description of all the instances of unwelcome behaviour by the complainant towards the 21 women identified as victims of his conduct, and their names were given in almost all cases. The complainant was therefore plainly apprised of the content of all the testimony taken during the investigation and of the e-mails which he had not been allowed to see. Furthermore, although, as stated above, the identity of the witnesses was not revealed to him, it is obvious that most of the information recorded in the report could only have come from the 21 persons concerned themselves. The complainant was therefore given a real opportunity to dispute the various items of evidence gathered in the course of proceedings against him. Moreover, it is clear from the above-mentioned comments which he submitted to the Organization on 18 November 2011 to rebut the charges of which he had been notified, that he had in fact been able to prepare them without any particular difficulty. Indeed, he himself described these comments as “clarifications and objections to the accusations of sexual harassment against [him], based on the whole file, and in particular on the IOS investigation report”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3295
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 3430
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that, in imposing the sanction of dismissal, the President of the EPO had not exceeded the bounds of her discretionary authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3337
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Considering that his harassment complaint has not been treated within a reasonable time, the complainant asks the Tribunal to sanction the Organisation for breach of its duty of care.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the serious nature of allegations of harassment in the workplace and the need for international organisations to investigate such allegations promptly and thoroughly. This is a function of the organisation’s duty of care to its staff members to uphold their dignity. [...] It is in relation to this obligation that the Tribunal, in Judgment 3069, under 12, for example, stated that international organisations have to ensure that an internal body that is charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
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.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In Judgment 2495, under 9(b), the Tribunal held that in taking a decision at the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, an Executive Head, such as the Registrar, is not bound by the recommendations of a disciplinary board. The Registrar may depart from them if another solution is considered to be more appropriate to ensure the satisfactory running of the Organization. The Tribunal will not substitute its assessment for that of the Registrar, unless it notes a clear disproportion between the gravity of the offence committed and the severity of the penalty imposed by the Registrar. However, a Registrar who departs from a recommendation of a board, as in this case, must state the reasons for disregarding it. One purpose which is served by this requirement to give reasons is to enable the Tribunal to evaluate whether the decision is proportionate in the event that the decision is challenged in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2391, under 8). In this case, the Registrar motivated her decision for departing from the recommendation of the DAB, but gave insufficiently cogent reasons for issuing the reprimand and warnings to the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2391, 2495
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; executive head;
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.
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is observed that there is no limitation period in relation to disciplinary proceedings in the Staff Regulations and Rules. The complainant’s attempt to analogise from the Staff Rule concerning the recovery of an overpayment within one year is without merit. An overpayment is in no way analogous to misconduct. It is true that, if possible, an organisation should promptly take action when the possibility of misconduct on the part of a staff member comes to its attention. However, the complainant’s assertion that an alleged violation of a Staff Rule, if considered serious, “has to be investigated promptly and at the latest one year after the Administration took notice thereof” has no foundation in law or in the Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3137
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
A staff member is entitled to due process before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. In this regard, he or she must be given, at the very least, an opportunity to test the evidence on which the charges are based, to give his own account of the facts, to put an argument that the conduct in question does not amount to misconduct and that, even if it does, it should not attract the proposed sanction (see Judgments 2254, consideration 6, and 2475, consideration 22). The complainant was given an opportunity to reply to the OIOS report but, beyond that, it is not clear that the requirements of due process were observed. However, it is clear that he had no opportunity to test the evidence of others interviewed by the OIOS or any other evidence that was used against him. This was a serious breach of due process upon which the complainant was entitled to rely in his internal appeals, without seeking a hearing in which to give evidence or to test the evidence of others.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254, 2475
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process;
Judgment 3126
113th Session, 2012
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; 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 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 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"[T]he right to be heard must be respected in an especially rigorous manner in disciplinary proceedings."
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; organisation's duties; right to reply;
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 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgment 2496, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
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 9
Extract:
"While internal investigative reports cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action against a staff member, they may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if they yield indications of irregularities justifying this (see, in this respect, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When the organisation concerned initiates proceedings in the light of such reports, it is not itself obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in these documents, but must simply ensure that the person in question is given the opportunity to reply to the findings they contain so as to respect the rights of defence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary charges; disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
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;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (for example, Judgments 999 and 2475), to object to evidence (for example, Judgment 2468) or to have a verbatim record of the evidence (for example, Judgment 1384). These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses' testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out to the Assistant Director-General and, later, the Director of the Human Resources Management Division, inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...]. In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the complainant had and exercised a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. There is no suggestion that he was in any way circumscribed in the way his appeal was conducted. Accordingly, the process, viewed in its entirety from the making of the subordinate's harassment complaint until the Committee reported to the Director-General, was one that satisfied the requirements of due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1384, 2468, 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply; testimony;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2667
104th Session, 2008
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The duty to act independently and impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final formal decision in proceedings, but also on bodies responsible for giving an advisory opinion or for making a recommendation to this authority, a fortiori where the recommendation is a formal part of the decision-making process (see Judgment 2315, under 27)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; condition; decision; disciplinary procedure; due process; independence; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 2616
102nd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"The failure of the [Joint Disciplinary Committee] and, in turn, the Director-General to take into account the highly relevant evidence as to the complainant's health [...] constitutes an error of law."
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disregard of essential fact; evidence; executive head; health reasons; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2496
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; official; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
