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 3365
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing his harassment complaint and his allegations of denial of justice.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant deplores the fact that he did not receive the IOS report. It is, however, plain from the submissions in the file that no report was drawn up in this case, as is permissible under the policy on harassment when the IOS considers allegations to be manifestly groundless. In these circumstances WHO is obliged only to inform the complainant of the IOS findings. This was done by the Director-General’s decision of 22 December 2010.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It is accepted that once the investigation was started it was completed in a timely manner. However, given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself in a timely manner and the corollary obligation of ensuring that the internal body responsible for investigating and reporting on claims of harassment has the necessary resources to carry out that responsibility (see Judgment 3069, under 12). A delay of five months before the investigation of a claim of harassment is undertaken is unreasonable and, in this case, also contributed to the overall length of the internal appeal process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 19 to 21
Extract:
"It is well settled that a staff member must have access to all evidence upon which a decision concerning that staff member is based. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3264, under 15:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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’. Additionally ‘[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality’ (see Judgment 2700, under 6). It also follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member (see, for example, Judgment 2899, under 23).”
It is equally well settled that a statement in a staff regulation or other internal document that a report is confidential will not “shield a report […] from disclosure to the concerned official”. Moreover, “[i]n the absence of any reason in law for non-disclosure of the report, such non-disclosure constitutes a serious breach of the complainant’s right to procedural fairness” (Judgment 3264, under 16).
The fact that the complainant did not request a copy of the report of the IAOD, which investigated her claim of harassment, is irrelevant. She was entitled to receive a copy of it. Equally, it is not an answer to say that the complainant was given a summary of the report. In addition to the fact that she was entitled to the entire report, the summary did not contain any of the evidence upon which the conclusion was based. It simply stated that “[t]he IAOD investigation has not found facts that support the complainant’s allegations or that show she was entitled to have matters requested by her approved or that she was subjected to harassment, whether through a single incident or as an on-going pattern”. The complainant was effectively precluded from challenging the factual assertions and credibility of the witnesses interviewed and was left not knowing what evidence if any should be marshalled to counter the investigator’s conclusions.
As stated in the case law, a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the staff member. In the present case, the failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report prior to the Director General taking his 25 June decision renders that decision fundamentally flawed. However, as that decision was overtaken by subsequent events, the only remedy today is an award of moral damages."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 2899, 3264
Keywords:
due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation;
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 3315
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks damages for the injury arising from breach of due process and institutional harassment.
Considerations 10-14 and 16
Extract:
WHO’s Investigation Process revolves around the Headquarters’ Office of Internal Oversight Services (IOS). It makes that Office responsible for fact-finding by investigating allegations against staff members. Accordingly, the document states that the Director-General has given functional independence to the IOS, which is to formulate its investigative programme and the conduct of it. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, the IOS is to determine whether the matter could be dealt with more appropriately by another entity. The process provides for interviews, including the person against whom the allegation is made, and witnesses. Investigators are required to document the interviews and to ask those interviewed to review the record of the interview and sign it. The investigating authority must then prepare a report containing the established facts and evidence gathered, including statements and documents. The report is to be sent to the Director-General or the Regional Director. If, after reviewing it, the latter decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings, he or she should ask the Director of HRD to make the formal written charge and dispatch it to the staff member with all of the information on which the charge is based. Neither this nor any similar process was followed in the present case.
The Organization explains that the letter of 20 October 2008 was sent to the complainant based on extensive information from her colleague during the harassment investigation and the Regional Director’s analysis of the matter. However, the status of the letter was markedly ambiguous. It can even be reasonably viewed as threatening. Among other things, it stated as follows:
“Of serious concern to the Organization is that staff members, as international civil servants, must observe at all times the standards of conduct as defined in Article 1 of the Staff Regulations and Rule 110. On the basis of the attached allegations from [her colleague], it could be concluded that you have contravened these standards. This could lead to a finding of misconduct pursuant to Staff Rule 110.8, which could result in disciplinary action taken against you further to Staff Rule 1110, including dismissal or summary dismissal.
In view of the gravity of the allegations made against you, and before deciding whether or not to take disciplinary action against you under Staff Rule 1110, please provide your comments on this letter to the undersigned, which is being delivered to you by hand, by 31 October 2008.
Following a review of any comments provided to us within the aforementioned deadline, and subject to any further investigation that is considered to be warranted, you will be notified of the final decision in this matter.”
These statements were made in circumstances where there had been no independent investigation of the allegations. This was coupled with the clear suggestion that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the complainant, she could be subjected to disciplinary measures without more being done. In particular, no charges would be formulated identifying precisely the conduct which was said to constitute misconduct and apparently without having an opportunity to answer as contemplated by Staff Rule 1130 and without establishing the investigative procedure which the Organization’s guidance requires. This was a breach of due process. [...]
The Organization states that the Administration previously used the procedure. This, however, is not an acceptable excuse when WHO’s Investigation Process required an investigation and factfinding on the allegations before a letter of that nature was issued.
The Tribunal notes that the allegations on which the letter of 20 October 2008 was issued were circulated to various authorities within WHO. The Organization explains this by stating that they were sent to keep the authorities to whom the complaint against the accused colleague had already been sent apprised of the situation. The allegations contained statements of a personal nature. They were potentially harmful to the complainant’s reputation and, as she states, they were hurtful to her. In these circumstances, the failure to investigate the allegations in accordance with WHO’s own Investigation Process before they were circulated also amounted to a want of fairness and good faith that constituted moral injury which entitles the complainant to compensation. The complainant is entitled to have the letters of 20 October 2008 and 3 April 2009 expunged from her personal file.
[...]
In summary, the Organization breached the due process requirements of Staff Rules 1230.1.3 and 1130 and WHO’s Investigation Process. The Organization also breached its duty to provide the complainant with the efficient internal means of redress to which she was entitled. The complaint is well founded on these grounds, which entitles the complainant to damages.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3314
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law requires an international organization to investigate allegations of harassment linked to the workplace thoroughly, in accordance with due process and the protection of the person accused. The investigation should be prompt and thorough; the facts determined objectively and in their overall context; the law is to be applied correctly and the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed, should not be stigmatised or victimized on that account. (See, for example, Judgment 2973, under 16.) An international organization is also required to ensure that its investigative and internal appeal bodies for this purpose are functioning properly. (See, for example, Judgment 3069, under 12.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3069
Keywords:
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 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that even where there is a single injurious action, an allegation of harassment is a serious matter which must be investigated thoroughly in order to determine whether the words may reasonably be true on the facts as found from the surrounding circumstances. (See Judgment 2553, under 6, and Judgment 2771, under 15.) The Tribunal finds that the [Disciplinary Advisory Board] should have called the available witnesses to assist it to carry out a thorough investigation in the case, particularly given that the facts were contested on the disparate versions given by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 2771
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; witness;
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 7
Extract:
"It is true that an organisation should investigate allegations of misconduct in a timely manner both in the interests of the person being investigated and the organisation. These interests include, among other things, safeguarding the reputations of both parties and ensuring that evidence is not lost."
Keywords:
consequence; delay; duty of care; evidence; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties;
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;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that 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” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty to inform; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; official; right;
Judgment 3287
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who reported his suspicions that someone was unlwafully accessing his professional email account, impugned the decision to deny him access to the investigation report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; delay; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; right;
Judgment 3269
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that she was submitted to harassment and denounces flaws in the inquiry relating to her harassment allegations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint dismissed; delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 3242
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the investigation report made pursuant to her allegations of harassment on the ground that it was procedurally flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3236
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the decision to subject him to an investigation was tainted with misuse of power.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Concerning the initiation of the investigation itself, the Tribunal’s case law is clear that a decision to begin an investigation into misconduct at that stage is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
decision; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; staff member's interest;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Reference is made to decisions of this Tribunal which make it clear that an organisation is under a duty to investigate claims of harassment promptly and bona fide (see Judgments 2552, 2654 and 2910).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2654, 2910
Keywords:
claim; harassment; investigation; time limit;
Judgment 3170
114th Session, 2013
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that she was the victim of harassment and that the investigation thereon was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3010, 3131
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; harassment; inquiry; investigation; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 3099
112th Session, 2012
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he obligation to treat staff members with dignity and the duty of good faith required, at the very least, that there be an accurate record of the interviews, which could have been achieved by, for example, the making of a transcript by a competent stenographer."
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; recording; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3097
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; inquiry; investigation; short-term; termination of employment;
Judgment 3094
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal makes the following observation. The complainant’s claims that she is entitled to participate in the investigation and that due process entitles her to information about the course of the investigation are equally without merit.
Keywords:
investigation; right to information;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; right to reply; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 36
Extract:
"It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment. That duty extends to both the staff member alleging harassment and the person against whom a complaint is made (see Judgment 2642, under 8). [...] Further, the duty is a duty to investigate claims of harassment "promptly and thoroughly" (see Judgment 2642, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
claim; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]n international organisation has an obligation to ensure that an internal body charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning."
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an accusation of harassment requires that “an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused”. Furthermore, “[i]ts 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 […], 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 Judgment 2973, under 16, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
