|
|
 |
|
|
Retaliation (711,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Retaliation
Total judgments found: 23
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5133
141st Session, 2026
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to maintain its earlier decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of discharge from service after due notice and to pay her 50 per cent of the termination indemnity in execution of Judgment 4460.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal has pointed out many times in its case law that bad faith may not be presumed and must be proved (see Judgments 4451, consideration 16, and 4345, consideration 6). The burden of proof is on the complainant, and to support her allegation she must demonstrate that there was malice, ill-will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose (see Judgment 3902, consideration 11). Similarly, it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory (see Judgments 4391, consideration 13, and 4363, consideration 12). A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant (see Judgment 4867, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4345, 4363, 4391, 4451, 4867
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; retaliation; standard of proof;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The same principle regarding the burden of proof applies to retaliation: it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that the actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory (see Judgment 4363, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4363
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; retaliation;
Judgment 5057
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 classer sa plainte pour représailles à l’issue de la procédure d’évaluation préliminaire de celle-ci.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés avec la diligence requise au regard, notamment, de la nature de la décision qu’ils entendent contester (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4660, au considérant 24, 4457, au considérant 29, ou 4063, au considérant 14).
En l’espèce, il s’est écoulé, entre l’introduction de l’avis d’appel du requérant […] et la notification de la décision de la Directrice générale […] ayant statué sur son recours, une durée de près de dix-huit mois. Même si cette durée s’explique, à concurrence de trois mois, par le fait que l’intéressé n’a soumis sa requête détaillée au Conseil d’appel que [tardivement], un tel délai de traitement présente un caractère excessif eu égard à la nature de l’affaire. Compte tenu des lourds enjeux qui s’y attachent pour les fonctionnaires concernés, les recours relatifs à des plaintes pour représailles doivent en effet normalement être traités – à l’instar de ceux concernant des plaintes pour harcèlement – avec une particulière célérité.
Le Tribunal estime que le retard ainsi observé dans le déroulement de la procédure, dont la défenderesse ne fournit aucune justification pertinente, a causé au requérant un tort moral qu’il y a lieu d’indemniser.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4063, 4457, 4660
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury; retaliation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; rating; retaliation;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Si l’évaluation des performances et la dénonciation de prétendues représailles relèvent certes de procédures différentes, il n’en demeure pas moins que des représailles à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire sont susceptibles de prendre la forme d’une notation défavorable et rien ne fait obstacle, en principe, à ce qu’un requérant invoque le contenu d’un de ses rapports d’évaluation à l’appui d’une plainte. En outre, s’il existe évidemment, en l’espèce, des liens étroits entre la contestation de l’évaluation litigieuse […] et celle du rejet de la plainte pour représailles en cause dans la présente instance, ces litiges soulèvent toutefois des questions distinctes.
Keywords:
rating; retaliation;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[L]e requérant est fondé […] à soutenir que le Conseil d’appel a commis une erreur de droit, car la conclusion en cause repose sur une inversion irrégulière de la charge de la preuve. Il est vrai que, selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, c’est normalement au fonctionnaire se plaignant d’avoir été victime d’actes de représailles qu’il appartient d’établir le bien-fondé de ses allégations (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4391, au considérant 13, ou 4238, au considérant 5). Mais cette jurisprudence ne vaut qu’en l’absence de texte contraire (voir notamment le jugement 4363, aux considérants 11 et 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238, 4363, 4391
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 5002
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.
Consideration 4
Extract:
WHO states that this complaint is receivable only to the extent that it concerns the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment and the related decisions to place her on SLWFP and to pay her three months’ salary in lieu of notice. It submits that any arguments relating to matters that are the subject of other proceedings should be disregarded as being outside the scope of this complaint. Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it may consider them as pleas to support the complainant’s allegations that the decision to terminate her appointment was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Judgment 5001
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of the 2019 Mobility Exercise.
Consideration 5
Extract:
WHO states that it does not object to the receivability of this complaint insofar as it pertains to the complainant’s claims relating to UNAIDS’ decision to reassign her to the position of Fast-Track Adviser in Malawi […] it asks the Tribunal to disregard, as outside the scope of this complaint, other claims or references the complainant makes relating to her request for acting pay, her challenge to two decisions not to select her for P-5 level posts […] and a decision concerning home leave. […] Whilst the Tribunal agrees with WHO that claims concerning these matters are outside the scope of the present complaint, it notes the complainant’s statement which suggests that such pleas may be relevant to support her allegations that the decision to reassign her to Malawi was tainted by bias, retaliation and abuse of authority. The Tribunal may only consider these pleas as such.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; misuse of authority; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant appears to have rejected the proposal of WHO/CRE that her allegations be referred to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (IOS) for investigation, preferring to seek an informal solution. […] [T]he documents submitted with the additional submissions by the parties, nor indeed the evidence in the record, has the complainant provided evidence of sufficient quality or weight to persuade the Tribunal that the decision to reassign her to Malawi was taken because of bias, bad faith, retaliation, as a hidden disciplinary sanction and/or abuse of authority, as she alleges. In particular, although it is significant that WHO/CRE recommended that the complainant be “protected preventatively” from retaliation based on a prima facie assessment of her allegations, this does not, in itself, establish that the alleged retaliation occurred.
Keywords:
burden of proof; investigation; retaliation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] then recalled the case law in consideration 6 of Judgment 3748 and consideration 9 of Judgment 3380 to the effect that the complainant bears the burden to prove allegations of bias and to establish that the actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory and the evidence produced must be of sufficient weight to persuade the Tribunal, and, further, that reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations. By reference to consideration 14 of Judgment 4863, the Tribunal confirms that these are the applicable principles, including to prove allegations of abuse of authority, and notes, further, the statement in that consideration that the existence of a hidden disciplinary measure cannot be inferred from mere conjecture and could not be accepted unless it were proven.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3748, 4863
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; burden of proof; hidden disciplinary measure; misuse of authority; retaliation;
Judgment 5000
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the “deemed rejection” of his request for an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the Assistant Director-General at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva; the determination by the Office of Compliance, Risk Management and Ethics that he had not suffered retaliation, and that he was not entitled to protection against retaliation; and WHO’s decision to accept his resignation which he claims constitutes constructive dismissal.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he causal link implies that there is no retaliation if the administrative decision alleged to be retaliatory would have been adopted even if the complainant had not made a report of misconduct (see Judgment 4858, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
retaliation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Pursuant to paragraph 19 of [WHO] Policy, the presumption that retaliation is found to have happened presupposes that the retaliatory conduct follows a report of wrongdoing (see Judgment 4858, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
retaliation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[E]ven if it were to be accepted that the alleged “dismissal threats” actually occurred, they would not amount to retaliation in light of the statutory definition, as they occurred before and not after the report of wrongdoing (see Judgment 4858, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
retaliation; threat;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he existence at least of a risk of retaliation (if not the occurrence of the actual retaliation) must be assessed having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the present case, this risk, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is purely speculative.
Keywords:
retaliation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, if the administrative decision, alleged to be retaliatory, would have occurred even if the complainant had not made a report of misconduct, that decision cannot be considered retaliatory (see Judgment 4858, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
retaliation;
Consideration 16
Extract:
Considering that privileges and immunities are conferred to staff in the interests of the Organization, the refusal by the Organization to waive the immunity falls within its discretion. Thus, such a refusal cannot by itself be construed as an act of retaliation, also considering that the immunity is aimed at the protection of the staff, unless there is specific evidence that it is; and in the present case there is no such evidence.
Keywords:
privileges and immunities; retaliation;
Consideration 23
Extract:
The mere fact that the Organization found that the complainant had not been subject to retaliation and that there was no need for whistleblower protection, which the Organization did lawfully, is not inconsistent with the maintenance of the employment relationship.
Keywords:
constructive dismissal; retaliation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; constructive dismissal; retaliation;
Judgment 4953
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant’s argument that in violation of the adversarial principle the JAB did not obtain a copy of the OIOS report [into the investigation of her retaliation complaint] nor provided it to her for comment is […] inconsequential, since through the present complaint the complainant is not impugning the decision to close her retaliation complaint but the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment.
Keywords:
investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Judgment 4917
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
UNIDO’s submission regarding the receivability needs to be addressed. In the complainant’s fourth plea, the complainant argues that the investigation into her retaliation complaint […] was flawed […] These arguments should be raised within the context of the challenge of the outcome of the complainant’s retaliation complaint post-dating the decision not to renew her appointment and are outside the scope of the present complaint, which focuses on the non-renewal decision.
Keywords:
investigation; non-renewal of contract; receivability of the complaint; retaliation;
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
In her third plea, the complainant argues that UNIDO’s refusal to share with the JAB the final investigation report into her retaliation complaint impeded the latter’s proper evaluation of her allegations of retaliation. A related argument advanced by the complainant is that she “should have been given the opportunity to comment on documents that would be considered and relied upon by [UNIDO] in the [non-renewal] decision”. UNIDO contends that the plea of breach of due process rights has no merit because the investigation report was completed several months after the [non-renewal] decision of 29 April 2021 and “played no role” in such decision. […] while it is true that the case law of the Tribunal states that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases its decision against her or him, in the present case the non-renewal decision dated 29 April 2021 was not based on the content of the investigation report, which was completed several months later, in October 2021. The impugned decision did not rely on the content of the investigation report either. The complainant’s third plea is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal further notes that the complainant has provided no persuasive evidence, even inferentially, of a causal link between the non-renewal decision and her allegations of harassment and misconduct […] Her complaint of retaliation was investigated, leading to the conclusion that her allegations were unsubstantiated, and the case was closed. The complainant has not produced evidence that would displace that conclusion (see Judgments 4599, consideration 13, and 2989, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2989, 4599
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges retaliation, but her allegation is generic and unsubstantiated. A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant (see Judgments 4391, consideration 13, and 4363, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4363, 4391
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4357, consideration 9) and he has not done so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4357
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; retaliation;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the decision not to promote him was a hidden disciplinary sanction against him because he was a staff representative appointed by the Central Staff Committee as a member of the General Advisory Committee, to discourage employees from being staff representatives, is unfounded. The complainant provides no evidence, as against conjecture, to prove a nexus between the non-promotion decision and this allegation or from which it may be inferred that the decision was retaliatory (see, for example, Judgment 2907, under 23) or was actuated by prejudice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2907
Keywords:
hidden disciplinary measure; promotion; retaliation; staff representative;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4238, consideration 5, the Tribunal recently recalled its case law which has consistently stated that it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4261, consideration 10) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; institutional harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The fact that a managerial decision was taken in the interests of the service and under time pressure is not inherently incompatible with it also being an act of retaliation. Very often a managerial decision involves choices between courses of action. The adoption of a course of action because it is in the interests of the service, may also be intended, at least in part, as an act of retaliation.
Keywords:
organisation's interest; retaliation;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] stated, in Judgment 3748, consideration 6, for example, that the complainant must establish that an action or conduct complained of was retaliatory, although it can be accepted that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice can be inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3748
Keywords:
retaliation;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; post description; retaliation;
Judgment 4005
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he fact of reporting unsatisfactory conduct may be relevant in a harassment case alleging retaliation.
Keywords:
harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 3748
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment allegedly made to her by the Chief Procurement Officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is incumbent on the complainant to establish that the actions or conduct complained of was retaliatory (see Judgment 3415, consideration 11), though it can be accepted that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice can be inferred from surrounding circumstances (see Judgment 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3415
Keywords:
organisation's interest; personal prejudice; retaliation;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
