Investigation (860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Investigation
Total judgments found: 172
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of fact finder and determine, itself, whether the case is made out that the complainant was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Rather the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether “a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact”, in this case the President.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; investigation; judicial review; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “[o]rdinarily, the process of decision-making involves a series of steps or findings which lead to a final decision. Those steps or findings do not constitute a decision, much less a final decision. They may be attacked as part of a challenge to the final decision but they themselves, cannot be the subject of a complaint to the Tribunal.” (See Judgment 2366, under 16, confirmed in Judgments 3433, under 9, and 3512, under 3.) Accordingly, the complainant’s claims related to the investigative procedure and the various acts adopted by the Investigative Unit and by its Chief are merely steps in the proceedings that cannot adversely affect the complainant until a final decision has been taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2366, 3433, 3512
Keywords:
final decision; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment 3944
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the sole purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether there are grounds for initiating disciplinary action.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3935
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
[L]ike the Appeals Board, the Tribunal considers that by the time the impugned decision was taken, it was no longer possible to conduct such an investigation, not only because both the complainant and the Director of the Office had left the Organization, but also because of the time that had elapsed since the incidents in question, which in particular made it difficult to gather reliable testimony from witnesses as to whether those incidents occurred and how third parties may have perceived them. [...]
This situation means that it is not possible, in the instant case, to reach an informed decision on the merits of the parties’ submissions as to the existence and, as the case may be, the effects of the harassment alleged by the complainant. Neither the parties’ briefs nor the evidence tendered allow the Tribunal to rule on these points with certainty; this would be possible only if the findings of an investigation that was duly carried out at the material time were available. [...]
Nevertheless, the fact that it is impossible for the complainant to have his internal complaints examined constitutes a serious violation of his right to effective means of redress, in particular as far as his harassment complaint is concerned. It has caused him considerable moral injury which, in the Tribunal’s view, justifies a higher amount of damages than that already awarded by UNESCO in the impugned decision.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was provided with summaries of the interviews of Ms E. and Ms B., as well as her own, and was given ample opportunity to comment on them, of which she availed herself. The auditors found that, in substance, the alleged statements had in fact been made by the complainant, based solely on the three witness testimonies (of Ms B., Ms E. and the complainant). The auditors were tasked only with a fact-finding investigation, so they made no qualitative judgement on the complainant’s statements in question and merely limited themselves to verifying whether or not the incident had occurred. Considering this, and the fact that the complainant had a summarized version of each of the interviews, she had all the evidence on which the authority based its decision (see Judgment 3863, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal stresses that the UPU is mistaken in relying on “confidentiality”, as stated in Staff Rule 110.4, quoted above, as a reason to deny the complainant a copy of either the investigation report or the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee. Clearly, Staff Rule 110.4(3) can only be interpreted as meaning that the deliberations are confidential and that the consequent reports are not to be published or shared unless or until the documents are relied on in adversarial proceedings, including in steps leading to the imposition of a disciplinary measure. While in the present case, the complainant had much of the information needed to defend herself (as the investigation was confined to the three witness interviews, of which she had summary copies), the only way to properly ensure that a staff member has been fully informed of all the evidence and other elements of the case against her or him, on which the authority has based or intends to base its decision, is to supply her or him with the pertinent documents. The UPU failed to do so and, in the result, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal assesses at 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the manner in which the complainant’s harassment investigation was closed was abrupt, arbitrary, unreasonable and without legal basis. The Head of HRD could have at least explained to the complainant why in her view Mr L. was an independent and suitable investigator or in some way resolve that issue, without closing the investigation at that stage.
In the foregoing premises, and since, in the Tribunal’s view, it is necessary that this harassment complaint be investigated pursuant to the Global Fund’s rules, that matter will be returned to the Global Fund which shall take the steps which are necessary for that investigation to be properly conducted.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3875
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Established precedent has it that before adopting a disciplinary measure, an organization must first inform the staff member concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and she or he must be given the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings. The staff member must be able to express her or his point of view and participate in the processing of any evidence which might be considered relevant to discovering the truth.
The case law has also made clear that a disciplinary investigation must be conducted in such a way as to clarify all the relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee, and that the employee must be given an opportunity to test the evidence against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 2254, under 6(a), 2475, under 7, 2771, under 14 and 15, 3315, under 6, and 3682, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254, 2475, 2771, 3315, 3682
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;
Consideration 5
Extract:
An investigation aimed at identifying the perpetrator of an undisputed incident of computer hacking has no chance of success unless rigorous protective measures are taken immediately, as a first step, in order to put an end to the damage caused by this unlawful action. The evidence in the file shows, firstly, that the conduct of the investigators towards an employee whom they could objectively regard as the prime suspect did not go beyond what was necessary in the circumstances. Had they not seized all the data in his possession, and had he not been removed temporarily from his workplace, it would have been easy for him, if he was the guilty party, to erase any data which might have proved that he was implicated in the hacking which formed the subject of the investigation.
Keywords:
evidence during investigation; hacking; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Judgment 3871
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to reinstate him after the decision to dismiss him was set aside.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has established that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of. An allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see Judgment 3233, under 6, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3848
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his special short-term contract for serious misconduct.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]here is nothing in the record indicating if or when the Director General determined that the serious misconduct had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If he did rely on the conclusion reached in the Investigation Report, that reliance was misplaced. Such a conclusion was clearly beyond the scope of the Investigation Team’s mandate and Terms of Reference that were limited to fact-finding. [...] This was the expression of an opinion that does not belong in a fact-finding report, was highly prejudicial to the complainant and undermines the fairness of the reporting.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3757
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; manifest error;
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.
Consideration 14
Extract:
IOS is a fact-finding investigative body. Its task is to collect, collate and analyse information objectively, impartially, fairly and with the highest degree of integrity and to determine thereupon whether there is sufficient information to substantiate a complaint on a balance of probabilities, examining both inculpatory and exculpatory information.
Keywords:
evidence; inquiry; investigation;
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 3663
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that his dignity was impaired in the context of his various transfers.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]t is observed that the impugned decision “confirmed that the plea for harassment was summarily dismissed by the Director General […] due to the fact that no evidence was provided that such harassment took place” and that “[f]urther investigation into the alleged case was not warranted”. The Tribunal finds that the complainant has provided no evidence to show that that decision was wrong or that his harassment complaint is meritorious. This harassment claim is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
harassment; investigation;
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;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As far as the IOS investigation is concerned, the complainant’s main contention is that this service lacks the requisite expertise, because it has little experience in dealing with sexual harassment cases. But the mere fact that the annual number of investigations which IOS has to conduct in this field is indeed very low does not justify such criticism. In this case, [...] the investigation was entrusted to an investigator who was specialised in harassment cases, and there are no grounds for doubting that person’s competence in this field.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Similarly, the complainant is not justified in contending that the procedure was unlawful because the IOS investigator did not submit the draft report to him for comment before forwarding it to the Director-General. Indeed, as the investigator had interviewed the complainant twice in the course of the investigation and had informed him of the evidence gathered during it, he had been given a genuine opportunity to challenge the accusations levelled at him.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the facts considered in these proceedings should have been confined to those directly concerning Ms M. and that it was therefore wrong also to take account of allegations related to his behaviour towards other persons. However, contrary to what the Appeals Board seems to believe, in the context of an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint, it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in the complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. In fact, that is often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where [...] it may be impossible to produce material evidence. More generally, it should be recalled that the question of whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see Judgments 2553, under 6, in fine, 3166, under 16, in fine, or 3233, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 3166, 3233
Keywords:
evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
In addition, although the other acts taken into consideration had not led to the lodging of harassment complaints – in many cases this may be explained by the inherent risks of making an accusation against a supervisor – this did not pose a legal obstacle to their being taken into account. All that mattered here was that these acts had actually occurred, irrespective of the action which might have been taken on them at an earlier stage. The fact that they did not lead to the lodging of a complaint does not make them any less relevant as evidence corroborating the allegations of Ms M. (see, in respect of this latter point, Judgment 2521, under 10, in fine). The reprehensible conduct of an international civil servant may well give rise to a disciplinary measure taken by the employing organisation on its own initiative, regardless of whether one of his or her colleagues files a complaint. Item 11.3 of the Human Resources Manual, on disciplinary procedure, expressly provides for such a step, and in this connection the defendant organisation rightly points out that item 18.2, paragraph 5(d), of the Manual makes the management of UNESCO responsible for “resolving all instances of harassment as soon as it becomes aware of them, even if there are no formal complaints”. Since, in the instant case, acts of harassment concerning persons other than Ms M. had been expressly mentioned in the memorandum of the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management of 3 November 2011 notifying the complainant of the charges against him, in this respect the procedure followed bears no criticism.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2521
Keywords:
evidence; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
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;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of such a complaint is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation. Item 18.2, paragraph 37, of the Human Resources Manual, on the anti-harassment policy, states that in order to justify the opening of an investigation, it is sufficient for the Ethics Adviser to find “that there are reasons to believe that the complaint is founded”. All that is therefore required at this stage is a prima facie finding that the complaint is genuine, since it is in the course of the investigation itself, if opened, that the comprehensive search for evidence must be made.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3625
121st Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges inter alia the decision to reject her allegations of harassment without conducting an investigation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3624
121st Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the non-conversion of her short-term appointment into a fixed-term contract and the fact that her allegations of harassment were not investigated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3617
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation; medical examination;
Consideration 11
Extract:
In Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal pointed out that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisation’s duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8 and 3085, under 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552, 2642, 3085
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 3502
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General's decision to partially adopt the Appeal Board's recommendations on his appeal against his temporary suspension.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal holds that, as the decision to temporarily suspend the complainant with full pay in accordance with Staff Rule 10.1.2 was part of a preliminary, fact-finding investigation into allegations of serious misconduct, in order not to prejudice the investigation, it was not unlawful for WIPO to only give the complainant information regarding the specific Rules that he was alleged to have infringed, without specifying at that time the exact details of the allegations (names, dates, etc.)."
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The quality of the evidence must necessarily be more stringent in a disciplinary proceeding than in a preliminary investigation."
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he complainant submits that the investigation took over nine months to complete and that this constitutes an excessive delay. The Tribunal finds that harassment cases in particular should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 2642, under 8). In the present case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that nine months to complete a harassment investigation is by no means excessive considering the length of the grievance itself and the over 300 annexes attached to be considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
