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 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It has been consistently held by the Tribunal that an employee of an international organisation has a right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings and, as said in Judgment 203, that 'right includes inter alia the opportunity to participate in the examination of the evidence'. As that judgment makes clear, that is so even 'in the absence of any explicit text'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; no provision; official; organisation; right; right to reply;
Judgment 2396
98th Session, 2005
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Any administrative or disciplinary body of an organisation which consults a third party to obtain information concerning the professional behaviour of one of its staff members must naturally avoid impairing the latter's dignity and reputation. In the first place, it absolutely must ensure that the presumption of his innocence is maintained, and if its action is such as to breach the presumption of innocence or the fundamental rights of the staff member, making that action confidential is of no avail."
Keywords:
breach; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; executive body; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; qualifications; respect for dignity; right;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
"The suspension of the complainant was an interim, precautionary measure, which was to last as long as the disciplinary procedure. It was ordered without hearing the complainant's views on the matter beforehand, but the latter's right to be heard was safeguarded since he later had an opportunity to exercise it before the impugned decision was taken. In any case, a decision to suspend need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 1927, under 5). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the Director-General. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal, that is to say, if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for instance, Judgment 2262, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2262
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; condition; decision; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; formal flaw; formal requirements; judicial review; limits; measure of distraint; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; official; organisation's duties; period; procedural flaw; proportionality; provisional measures; right to reply; suspensive action;
Judgment 2351
97th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7(c) and 8(a)
Extract:
When he was recruited the complainant provided a copy of a diploma but its authenticity was questioned a few years later. The matter was queried with the educational establishment and the Secretary-General then issued the complainant a written censure. The Tribunal considers that "there was not sufficient proof either that the diploma was not issued to the complainant [...] or that the latter had been informed that, according to the [educational establishment], he was not entitled to receive it. The Secretary-General might have enquired further into the aspects which remained uncertain, but did not do so. The 'likelihood' referred to by the Secretary-General, if it is not incontrovertibly ascertained, cannot make up for the lack of conclusive evidence. Based as it is on an arbitrary appraisal of the facts, the impugned decision as far as it concerns the disciplinary sanction must therefore be set aside. Although it did not give rise to a written decision, the non-renewal of the short-term contract was based on charges levelled against the complainant in the course of the disciplinary procedure. The mere cancellation of the disciplinary sanction must entail that of the decision of non-renewal."
Keywords:
bias; consequence; contract; decision; decision quashed; degree; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; executive head; grounds; implied decision; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right; short-term; terms of appointment; warning;
Judgment 2288
96th Session, 2004
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the complainant had only a few hours [...] to defend his case [...] constitutes [in itself] a breach of due process".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; right; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the safeguard available to international civil servants in the form of the mandatory consultation of an advisory body prior to any disciplinary measure cannot legally speaking be said to be complied with unless that body has held an official meeting, the matter has been discussed among the members and minutes of the meeting have been concomitantly drawn up. In the present case, the complainant was denied an essential safeguard owing to the individual consultation of the Joint Advisory Committee members by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] and the disregard for the procedure established in the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; consultation; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; formal requirements; general principle; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2254
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"According to firm precedent, 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. ... Failing a valid waiver on the part of the complainant of the adversarial proceedings provided for in the staff rules, the Director-General incorrectly based his decision on information that was not gathered in the context of adversarial proceedings guaranteeing the complainant's right to be heard. Since the complainant was not given the opportunity to put forward a proper defence, this fundamental flaw must cause the impugned decision to be set aside."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; evidence; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; investigation; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;
Judgment 2145
93rd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5 to 8
Extract:
"In the Organisation's view, since the payments it was making to the complainant were entirely voluntary, a matter of grace and favour on its part, it was quite at liberty to suspend such payments when the complainant failed to fulfil her obligation to submit to the [...] medical examination [required by the Invalidity Committee]. [It] is wrong. The Invalidity Committee's report [...] was categorical in stating that the complainant must be regarded as not fit for work. That means that she was unable to perform her duties and at a minimum she was entitled to receive the emoluments provided for in Article 62(7) unless and until the Invalidity Committee made a further finding putting an end to her sick leave, extending it, or placing her on permanent disability. But, without the authorisation of the Invalidity Committee, the [Organisation] had no right by its own unilateral action to suspend the payments to which she was entitled by law. [...] There can be no doubt that the [complainant] has a clear obligation to assist the Invalidity Committee and to present herself as and when reasonably required to do so for examination or treatment. If she fails to do so, that might constitute grounds for the Invalidity Committee to declare her sick leave at an end or it might form the basis of disciplinary action. [However, the Organisation] cannot take the law into its own hands without regard for the complainant's rights or its own obligations under the Service Regulations. [...] The highhanded actions of the [Organisation] in cutting the complainant's payments are both unjustified and illegal. The impugned decision must be rescinded."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 62 (7) OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
disability benefit; disciplinary procedure; incapacity; invalidity; medical board; medical examination; medical fitness; organisation's duties; payment; pension entitlements; refusal; right; sick leave; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Judgment 2009
90th Session, 2001
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant was suspended without pay for three months after being accused of making a false declaration and submitting false information to a court of law. The Joint Disciplinary Board found that there was sufficient evidence to prove his wrongdoing. "The Tribunal is satisfied that the Joint Disciplinary Board was entitled, having weighed the evidence, to draw the conclusions it did. It found that the complainant's explanations were not credible and rejected them. Where doubt does not exist, the question of the benefit of the doubt does not arise. So the complainant cannot succeed on the plea that his employer was bound to accept that he had made a mistake. The Board was fully justified in its findings."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; benefit of doubt; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; fitness for international civil service; general principle; misconduct; misrepresentation;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."
Keywords:
abuse of power; advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; misconduct; misuse of authority; purpose; report;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 1927
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In practice, while suspension is indeed an essentially interim measure which maintains the rights of the staff member concerned, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 353 [...], it is nevertheless a decision which causes injury to the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 353
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary procedure; injury; misconduct; safeguard; staff member's interest; suspension;
Judgment 1906
88th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant argues that, since none of [the instances of insubordination and improper activity which were noted by the organization] was ever made the object of disciplinary proceedings against him, they cannot be invoked as reasons in support of the decision not to renew his contract. The complainant is wrong. An organization is never under an obligation to launch disciplinary proceedings against a staff member and, where that person's appointment is drawing to an end, the fact that there are possible disciplinary infractions on his part may properly be considered when the administration is deciding whether or not to offer him a new contract."
Keywords:
contract; disciplinary procedure; grounds; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 1872
87th Session, 1999
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since the procedure that was instigated was not a disciplinary one, but a procedure for the termination of the complainant's appointment for unsatisfactory service, the complainant needed to be informed in due time, either through a negative performance appraisal report, or through precise warnings, that the organisation was not satisfied with his performance and that if he did not improve it his appointment would be terminated." (see Judgment 1484)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; organisation's duties; performance report; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Judgment 1796
86th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The statements by the representative [of the organization] and by the complainant are at odds and there is no irrefutable evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusion is that what was needed was a proper inquiry to see whether on the strength of reliable evidence the charges against him stood up.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; misconduct;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant was reassigned because of his alleged poor attendance and time-keeping. "The [Organization's] treatment of him looks like punishment for conduct it disapproved of and for low output. So there should first have been due disciplinary process affording him full safeguards."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; output; punctuality; right to reply; safeguard; transfer; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1764
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[The complainant's] behaviour cannot be seen as anything but fraud to his employer's cost and warranting severe punishment. And his shifty attempts to cover up his misconduct and mislead the Agency in the enquiry made his offence a great deal worse."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; honesty; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; serious misconduct; staff member's duties;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "He makes out that [...] there was no express ban on what he did. Even if that were so, employees of the [Organisation] have a duty [...] 'to regulate their conduct with the interests of the [Organisation] only in view', and may not so behave as to harm its good name. There is no need for any express rule against cheating. Common decency, good faith and honest dealing lie at the root of relations between employer and employee. Whoever ventures to ignore that does so at his own peril."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; fitness for international civil service; honesty; international civil service principles; misconduct; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[A]lthough in all fairness an organisation must tell the staff member of the charges against him, it need not go into the detail of the penalties he may be incurring. Besides, the complainant must be deemed to have been familiar with the [staff] rules, and they do set out all the penalties, including dismissal. The staff member's right to know and to answer the charges against him does not require that he be told just what the punishment may be if he is found guilty."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; honesty; limits; organisation's duties; purport; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15 and 17
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Director of the Division of Personnel [...] was both the chairman of the Disciplinary Board and the head of the department conducting the initial investigation. That the Director of the Division of Personnel should be chairman of the Board is required by paragraph 13(a) of section 13, Part II, of the Agency's Administrative Manual and does not constitute a procedural flaw, but does give rise to a situation in which there is a grave danger of an actual breach of procedural fairness. That is what in fact occurred. As the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the Director had to refrain from personal involvement in the investigation. He must not be both judge and policeman. That, however, is what happened on at least one occasion. [...] This constitutes a serious breach of due process. [...] As chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board, the Director of the Division of Personnel had a duty to be and to appear to be impartial."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 13(A) OF SECTION 13, PART II, OF IAEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
Keywords:
bias; conflict of interest; disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; investigative body; procedural flaw;
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Appeals Board asked for and received a legal opinion from the Director of the Legal Division during the appeal. This [...] was a violation of due process because that Director had been a member of the Disciplinary Board, whose recommendation was under appeal. The Agency admits that the Director signed a legal opinion that had been prepared at the request of the Appeals Board. That opinion should not have been given by the Director and should have been rejected by the Appeals Board; the Director simply should not have been involved, in substance or in form, with the Appeals Board's recommendation. A member of the body appealed from may not give legal advice to the body which hears the appeal."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; equity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; report;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[W]ith respect to the complainant's submission that the Disciplinary Board's report is not valid because it is not dated, signed or otherwise authenticated, the 'report' is actually a summary record of the Board's meetings. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the record is not an accurate summary of the Board's views, and it was clearly adopted by the Board, as well as the [Organisation], as representing them. The substance of the summary record clearly indicates the conclusion of the Board. There is thus no irregularity in the form of the report."
Keywords:
claim; disciplinary procedure; formal flaw; formal requirements; report;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"While it is true that the records of selection committees must be made available to appellate bodies, yet, insofar as they relate to staff other than the appellants themselves, they are confidential, and there is no general requirement of disclosure to such appellants."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.9.340.3
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; performance report; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1675
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The Organisation] pleads that the hearing of witnesses by the Disciplinary Board need not be adversarial and that the inquiry will be if the Board hears witnesses called by both sides. the plea is mistaken. An inquiry will be adversarial only if the parties attend, or have at least been duly invited to attend, the hearing of witnesses."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: RULE NO. 12 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to reply; testimony;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
