Disciplinary procedure (509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary procedure
Total judgments found: 145
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 5182
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him from service in the context of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 14
Extract:
“The Tribunal has consistently held that a suspension imposed in the context of disciplinary proceedings, whether with or without pay, is an interim measure that does not prejudge the outcome of the disciplinary process. As such a decision involves the exercise of discretion, the Tribunal’s review is limited. Importantly, the lawfulness of such a measure must be assessed at the date of its adoption; later developments may bear on its continuation but do not retroactively affect its initial legality.”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; subsequent fact; suspension;
Judgment 5161
141st Session, 2026
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to open disciplinary proceedings against him, as well as the decision to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Consideration 2
Extract:
«Le Tribunal a déjà eu l’occasion de relever dans les jugements 4632, au considérant 4, et 3961, au considérant 4, qu’un fonctionnaire n’est pas recevable à contester la procédure disciplinaire conduite à son encontre, y compris l’ouverture de celle-ci, tant qu’une décision n’a pas été rendue à l’issue de cette procédure. Ce n’est qu’une fois que la procédure disciplinaire aura abouti et qu’une décision aura été rendue qu’un fonctionnaire pourra contester cette décision, ainsi que tout autre aspect de la procédure. Il est de jurisprudence constante que des procédures peuvent comprendre plusieurs étapes qui mènent à une décision définitive susceptible d’être attaquée, mais ces étapes ne peuvent elles-mêmes être contestées isolément. Permettre le contraire risquerait d’engendrer d'inutiles recours individuels qui paralyseraient les procédures (voir les jugements 3876, au considérant 5, 3700, au considérant 14, 3512, au considérant 3, et 3433, au considérant 9). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3433, 3512, 3700, 3876, 3961, 4632
Keywords:
administrative decision; disciplinary procedure; receivability of the complaint; step in the procedure;
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
“The Tribunal notes that its case law […] concerning an investigator’s duty to gather exculpatory evidence, including interviewing witnesses listed by the accused person, was primarily established in cases where the disciplinary charges were solely based on witness statements and the accused person questioned the credibility of the witnesses (see, specifically, Judgment 5003, consideration 5). […] [In the present case] the charges of misconduct are supported not only by witness statements, but also by decisive and conclusive documentary evidence, consisting of emails sent by the complainant to other staff members and external third parties. Therefore, the hearing of the witnesses listed by the complainant could not have disproven the finding of misconduct already evident from the complainant’s emails.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard; witness;
Consideration 38
Extract:
“The complainant also requests moral compensation for the delay in the process, arguing that the overall duration of the investigation and disciplinary proceedings was excessively long. She contends that she was left in a state of complete uncertainty about her career for roughly 30 months, during which time she was suspended from service. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and, specifically, its complexity and the number of witnesses interviewed, the Tribunal finds that the length of the process was not inordinate and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to moral damages in this regard.”
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure; investigation; moral damages; suspension;
Consideration 4
Extract:
“[B]efore adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff concerned the opportunity to defend themselves in adversarial proceedings (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, and 3875, consideration 3). 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 Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence (see Judgment 5003, consideration 5).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4011, 4343, 4491, 4697, 4832, 5003
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence during investigation; investigation;
Consideration 24
Extract:
“[T]he Tribunal recalls its established case law concerning disciplinary matters. The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, 4491, consideration 19, and 2913, consideration 9). The burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see Judgments 4858, consideration 17, and 4364, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2913, 4364, 4491, 4858
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; judicial review; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5146
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Judgment 5122
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.
Keywords:
disciplinary charges; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; legal assistance; notification of allegations; patere legem; right; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The violation of the complainant’s due process in the disciplinary process was a manifest error, which permits the Tribunal to set aside the impugned decision, as well as the initial decision contained in the letter of 7 February 2020, without it being necessary to rule on any other plea the complainant proffers. Inasmuch as the complainant’s rights to due process were violated, he is entitled to moral damages. For this, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal will award him 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; judicial review; manifest error; moral damages; patere legem; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Consideration 19
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law recognizes that an accusation of harassment requires an international organization to investigate the matter 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 […]. This necessitates, amongst others, that the person accused be kept informed of the content of statements and testimonies gathered as part of the relevant investigation to challenge them if necessary. The Tribunal’s case law accepts, however, that there may be situations in which an organization can, in some circumstances, refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process […]. The objective is to ensure that the person accused is sufficiently informed of the evidence on which the administration intends to base its decision and that he has an effective opportunity to test that evidence and to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct.”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; investigation; witness;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 12
Extract:
“[T]he complainant contends that, prior to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against him, he had lodged a harassment complaint, the content of which was shared by EMBL with Ms J.H. and Ms C.H.; this amounted, in his view, to a breach of confidentiality and may have undermined their credibility and that of other witnesses. […]
As EMBL notes in its reply, Ms J.H. and Ms C.H. were informed of the complainant’s harassment complaint because they were interviewed regarding it as part of the investigation. During these proceedings, facts emerged that might amount to harassment perpetrated by the complainant, prompting the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. In these circumstances there was no unlawful breach of confidentiality. In any event, failure to respect confidentiality in an investigation process, even if it were proven, does not constitute a conclusive flaw in the proceedings that would justify setting aside the disciplinary decision. A breach of confidentiality, if proven, might only arguably entitle the complainant to moral damages […].”
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; flaw; moral damages;
Consideration 18
Extract:
“[C]ross-examination of witnesses is not considered by the Tribunal’s case law to be a mandatory requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings […].”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; warning;
Judgment 5055
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de renvoi sans préavis dont il a fait l’objet.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; investigation; summary dismissal;
Judgment 5026
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct with one month’s notice and the payment of an indemnity, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proving misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt always rests on the shoulders of the international organisation and never, at any point in time in the process, does it shift upon a complainant.
Put differently, the complainant did not have any burden of providing exculpatory evidence. It was rather for WHO to establish that it had conducted a rigorous and thorough investigation, with no stone left unturned.
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n the absence of a specific deadline, the issue of whether the length of the proceedings should be characterized as excessive, might be relevant only to the question of whether the complainant is entitled to moral damages for undue delay. The complainant has not demonstrated that he suffered moral injury and, thus, he fails to establish the foundation for moral damages […].
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure; investigation; moral damages; moral injury;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]t is appropriate to recall the scope of the Tribunal’s review in disciplinary matters and the standard of evidence required for disciplinary convictions. The Tribunal shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]. In disciplinary matters, the Tribunal has consistently found that the burden of proof rests on an organization, which has to prove allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]. The role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to review the evidence and to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion […]. Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; discretion; investigation; role of the tribunal; standard of proof;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, it is sufficient that the accused staff member be informed of the allegations at the beginning of the interview […].
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s precedents have it that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against them, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. However, where disciplinary proceedings are brought against officials who have 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 officials, but they must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which they need to defend themselves fully in these proceedings. In order to respect the right of defence, it is sufficient for the officials to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against them and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that they may effectively challenge the probative value thereof […]. In light of the Tribunal’s case law, due process does not necessarily require that the accused staff be provided with the verbatim transcripts of the interviews of the witnesses […]. In conclusion, it was sufficient that the complainant was provided with an accurate written record of the interviews, and this was done.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 5003
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Firm and constant precedents of the Tribunal have it that, before adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff member concerned the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3875, consideration 3). Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if she or he 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 Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence. In the present case, the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not even dismissed with a reason, it was ignored completely. […]
It is true that, pursuant to WHO e-Manual, section III.12.4.530, the hearing of witnesses is at the discretion of the GBA, but the GBA must give reasons for its refusal to grant the hearing of witnesses, whilst in the present case the complainant’s request was merely ignored with no grounds at all.
The failure, during the entire process of investigating and evaluating the position of the complainant, to consider hearing the witnesses listed by the complainant is, in the Tribunal’s view, a serious flaw in the process, as some of the charges against the complainant are based only on the report and on the interview of the alleged victim, and one of the charges (namely the one referring to unwelcome hugging) is based on the interview of Mr W. In conclusion, the pleas are well founded to the extent that the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not considered. It cannot be established, at this stage, what would have been the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings if the witnesses listed by the complainant had been interviewed, namely, it cannot be established whether the findings would have warranted, in any event, the most severe sanction or a less severe sanction. Moreover, the Tribunal, in cases where it found that some of the charges were not proven “beyond reasonable doubt” due to the failure to consider exculpatory evidence, annulled the disciplinary decision in its entirety (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9, 16 and 17, 4453, consideration 15, and 4362, considerations 17 and 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4343, 4362, 4453, 4456, 4697, 4832
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard;
Consideration 10
Extract:
As for moral damages, the Tribunal will take into account that the complainant admitted some of the misbehaviour he was charged with, namely the text message concerning the pregnancy test, the small talk concerning Ms Z.’s marital status, and his request for the search of a second wife for him. This misbehaviour amounts at least to inappropriate conduct which would likely have warranted, in any event, a disciplinary sanction. Even if it is not the role of the Tribunal to establish whether this misbehaviour should have warranted a sanction and which kind of sanction, they are taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether and to what extent the complainant suffered a moral injury (see Judgment 4362, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4362
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4944
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her internal appeal in which she contended, among other things, that the investigations conducted and mandated by the World Food Programme into her complaint of rape were ultra vires and that her complaint should instead have been referred to and investigated by national or international judicial authorities.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the investigations conducted and mandated by the Organization [into her complaint of rape] were ultra vires and went beyond the scope of an administrative investigation, is misconceived. Firstly, the Tribunal notes that the FAO’s legal framework enshrined a wide definition of sexual harassment, which included rape, and compelled the Organization to promptly and thoroughly investigate reports of sexual assault […] Secondly, the Tribunal notes that pursuant to the relevant provisions of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations, the fact that deeds of staff members amount to a violation of national laws including crimes as defined by competent national laws, does not impede the FAO from taking action and investigating such deeds as misconduct for the purposes of its internal legal framework. Misconduct may well be relevant and be punishable both by national law and by the legal framework of an international organization. […] [T]he Organization is entitled to carry out an investigation into episodes of sexual harassment, including involving violence or lack of consent, even though such episodes may amount to rape according to the relevant national criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the same deed (here the alleged rape) may be regarded simultaneously as a crime according to the relevant national laws and as misconduct according to the legal framework of an international organization. Accordingly, such a deed may well be the subject matter of a criminal investigation and of internal proceedings (through an investigation into a harassment complaint and potential disciplinary proceedings) in parallel or in sequence, as can be inferred from paragraph 44 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, quoted in Section 304 of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations. The fact that a deed may amount to a crime potentially subject to criminal investigation to be carried out by the competent national authority does not impede an international organization from taking action for the purposes of its internal rules, and, in particular, for the purpose of conducting a prompt and thorough investigation upon a report of harassment/misconduct. There are no internal rules or policies that prevent the FAO from investigating misconduct amounting to a crime, for the purposes and the effects of internal investigation and measures. In such a case, the investigation is not of a criminal nature, and it is carried out without prejudice for further – concurrent, earlier or subsequent – action taken by the competent national authority. Thus, the allegation that, in the present case, the investigations mandated and conducted by WFP were ultra vires and beyond the Organization’s mandate, is unfounded.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; harassment; investigation; misconduct; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4934
139th Session, 2025
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It may be accepted that the expression “[existing] set of precise and concurring presumptions” can be viewed as a circumstance, in appropriate contexts, which leads to establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is illustrated, for example, in Judgment 3875, consideration 8, in which the Tribunal said:
“In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the employee did indeed engage in the conduct of which she or he is accused. If the facts are disputed and there is no persuasive material evidence, the facts of the dispute may be appraised on the basis of conclusive circumstantial evidence. Thus, the facts may be held to be established when a set of precise presumptions and concurring circumstantial evidence enable the decision-making authority to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the person concerned is guilty.”
It was said in Judgment 3757, consideration 6, that:
“[...] a set of precise and concurring presumptions removing any reasonable doubt that the acts in question actually took place”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3757, 3875
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; serious misconduct;
Judgment 4924
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; termination of employment;
Judgment 4864
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to withhold two months’ salary to comply with a national Court order.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that while international organizations cannot intrude on the private lives of their staff members, those staff members must nonetheless comply with the requirements inherent in their status as international civil servants, including in their personal conduct (see Judgment 4400, consideration 24). Thus, the complainant cannot invoke his right to respect for his private life as a shield to circumvent his duty towards the Organization to maintain a high standard of behaviour also in his private life. A high standard of behaviour implies discharging private obligations and not involving the Organization in private disputes, involvement which is unwanted by the Organization but inevitable where private debts are not settled.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4400
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary procedure; private life;
Judgment 4859
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the failure to respect confidentiality, even if it were proven, is not a decisive flaw in the proceedings which would justify the setting aside of the disciplinary decision. The breach of confidentiality, if proven, might only arguably entitle the complainant to moral damages.
[…]
In conclusion, there is neither evidence that UNAIDS failed to follow the proper procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the investigation nor of how the rumours were started, thus, no legal consequences arise (see Judgment 3236, consideration 14). Since there is no persuasive evidence that the Organization was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of information, the leak cannot be considered as part of a pattern of retaliation, and the complainant is not entitled to moral damages for breach of confidentiality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; flaw; moral damages;
Judgment 4858
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the failure to respect confidentiality, even if it were proven, does not amount to a conclusive flaw in the proceedings which would justify the setting aside of the disciplinary decision. The breach of confidentiality, if proven, might only arguably entitle the complainant to moral damages.
[…]
In conclusion, there is neither evidence that UNAIDS failed to follow the proper procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the investigation nor of how the rumours were started, thus, no legal consequences arise (see Judgment 3236, consideration 14). Since there is no persuasive evidence that the Organization was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure of information, the leak cannot be considered as part of a pattern of retaliation, and the complainant is not entitled to moral damages for breach of confidentiality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3236
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; flaw; moral damages;
Judgment 4846
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a finding made in the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
There is no material difference between the circumstances arising in this case and those that were considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 4295. In that case the complaint was dismissed because the complainant had no cause of action. A decision had been made by the Director General that no disciplinary measure would be imposed on the complainant. As the Tribunal observed, the decision was beneficial to the complainant, and thus he had no cause of action. To the extent that a finding of fact (contested by the complainant) had been made which led to the decision, that finding, as the Tribunal explained, “forms part of the reasons articulated in arriving at the decision”. In the present case, the decision not to commence disciplinary proceedings was likewise favourable to the complainant. To the extent findings of fact were made and adhered to in the impugned decision and reflected in the modified text of the letter of 22 February 2018, they were findings informing what was ultimately the favourable decision. Given the modification of the letter, there was no conclusory finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, the matter that troubled the WAB […] The complainant has no cause of action and her complaint should be dismissed.
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; impugned decision; misconduct; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The IOM’s legal framework does not specify the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment. Regarding this point, the Tribunal’s case law states that, while the standard of proof required to impose disciplinary measures on an individual charged with misconduct is that of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment is a less onerous standard (see, for example, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, 4289, consideration 10, and 4207, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4289, 4663
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; harassment; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[H]aving reviewed the applicable rules, the practice of the United Nations and the Tribunal’s case law, particularly stated in consideration 6 of Judgment 4313, the Federation had a legitimate interest [to launch a second investigation and disciplinary process] to correct the initial flawed process (the non-disclosure of the documents to the complainant) and to conclude the process on a proper legal basis and document the outcome on the complainant’s personnel file for its future employment decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4313
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; investigation; personal file;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
