|
|
 |
|
|
Institutional harassment (820,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Institutional harassment
Total judgments found: 21
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5192
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implied rejection of his request for an investigation of his complaint of institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; implied decision; institutional harassment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5136
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Interpol raises a threshold issue about the receivability of the complaint insofar as it might be thought to contain allegations of institutional harassment […]. Regarding the complainant’s allegations of institutional harassment, it is relatively clear that they are intended to establish that some aspect of the decision to deny his application for the Voluntary Departure Programme was unlawful and his claims do not appear to be cast any wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgments 4149, consideration 7, and 3688, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688, 4149
Keywords:
institutional harassment; plea; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 5056
140th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste, d’une part, la décision de rejet de ses demandes de réintégration à son poste au Siège de l’Organisation, ainsi que de suspension de la procédure de recrutement à ce poste, et, d’autre part, le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
S’agissant du second objet de la requête, le requérant se plaint de l’absence d’examen de ses allégations de harcèlement institutionnel.
[…]
Le Tribunal relève que, dans son mémoire en réponse, la défenderesse a fait valoir que la plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel formulée par le requérant le 16 janvier 2020 faisait l’objet d’une procédure et d’une décision distinctes.
Cependant, dans le cadre d’un supplément d’instruction ordonné par le Président du Tribunal, la défenderesse a fait savoir, par un courriel du 27 mai 2025, que l’Organisation avait «considéré qu’il n’y avait plus lieu de donner suite à la plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel déposée par [le requérant]» en raison du fait que celui-ci avait quitté l’Organisation.
Or, dès lors que le requérant avait déposé une plainte pour harcèlement le 16 janvier 2020, l’Organisation était tenue de se prononcer sur cette plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel, indépendamment du fait que l’intéressé avait entre-temps fait l’objet d’un renvoi sans préavis le 25 mars 2020.
Il s’ensuit que l’Organisation a commis une faute en n’examinant pas cette plainte.
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; institutional harassment; reinstatement;
Judgment 5023
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste le rejet de sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
Le Tribunal considère que la défenderesse fait erreur quand elle affirme que la décision d’ouvrir ou non une enquête lorsqu’elle est saisie d’une plainte pour harcèlement relève du pouvoir discrétionnaire de son chef exécutif. Dans le jugement 4663, au considérant 9 – qui se réfère notamment au considérant 15 du jugement 4207, rendu en formation plénière –, le Tribunal a rappelé qu’il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une organisation internationale a le devoir d’assurer aux membres de son personnel un environnement sûr et adéquat, qu’étant donné la gravité que revêt une plainte pour harcèlement, elle a l’obligation d’engager une enquête rapidement et que celle-ci doit être menée de manière approfondie. Une organisation ne saurait se soustraire à cette obligation, en se retranchant, à tort comme exposé ci-dessus, derrière le fait que les décisions prises en matière de harcèlement relèveraient du seul pouvoir discrétionnaire de son chef exécutif.
Le Tribunal estime en outre qu’en l’espèce la nécessité d’engager, à tout le moins, une évaluation préliminaire de la plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel s’imposait d’autant plus que, d’une part, dans le cadre des plaintes pour harcèlement moral déposées par la requérante […], c’était précisément la procédure qu’Interpol avait jugé nécessaire de suivre et, d’autre part, les enquêteurs désignés pour traiter ces plaintes avaient mis en évidence, dans leurs rapports, des défaillances en termes de communication avec l’intéressée et considéraient que des efforts devaient être faits pour les pallier, ce qui aurait dû inciter l’Organisation à une certaine prudence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4663
Keywords:
institutional harassment; investigation; organisation's duties;
Consideration 27
Extract:
S’agissant […] de la durée de la procédure de recours interne, […] il résulte d’une jurisprudence constante du Tribunal que les fonctionnaires ont droit à voir leurs recours examinés avec la diligence requise en tenant compte, notamment, de la nature de la décision qu’ils entendent contester (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4922, au considérant 22, 4660, au considérant 24, 4457, au considérant 29, ou 4063, au considérant 14). En outre, le caractère déraisonnable du délai d’examen d’un recours interne doit être apprécié à la lumière des circonstances propres à chaque affaire et le montant de la réparation susceptible d’être accordée à ce titre dépend normalement de deux facteurs, à savoir la durée du délai et les conséquences de celui-ci pour le fonctionnaire concerné (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4844, au considérant 11, 4727, au considérant 14, 4684, au considérant 12, 4635, au considérant 8, 4173, au considérant 12, ou 3160, au considérant 17).
En l’espèce, le délai qui s’est écoulé entre l’introduction du recours interne […] et la prise de la décision attaquée […] est excessif, en particulier eu égard à la nature des décisions contestées, qui portent sur une plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel. Bien que le Tribunal ait souligné, dans le jugement 5018 précité, que ce délai s’inscrit dans un contexte particulier et exceptionnel où la requérante a successivement introduit cinq recours internes découlant de la même suite d’événements, ce qui a entraîné de longs échanges d’écritures qui se sont terminés en mars 2020, ainsi qu’une analyse de la part de la Commission mixte de recours qui s’est échelonnée sur quelques semaines, et que ces écritures révèlent un antagonisme particulièrement acrimonieux entre les parties qui n’a sans doute pas été de nature à favoriser un traitement efficace et rapide des affaires, il n’en demeure pas moins que, dans le jugement 4922, au considérant 22, le Tribunal a rappelé qu’il a, de manière constante, mis l’accent sur la nécessité de traiter avec une particulière célérité les recours relatifs aux plaintes pour harcèlement (voir également les jugements 5058, au considérant 19, 4663, au considérant 19, et 4243, au considérant 24).
Dans ces circonstances, la requérante est fondée à soutenir qu’elle a subi un préjudice moral supplémentaire du fait de la durée excessive de la procédure de recours interne […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4063, 4173, 4243, 4457, 4635, 4660, 4663, 4684, 4727, 4844, 4922, 5018, 5058
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; institutional harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; institutional harassment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, le harcèlement institutionnel consiste notamment en une accumulation d’incidents répétés, d’erreurs de gestion ou d’omissions, pour lesquels il n’y a pas d’explication raisonnable et qui porte profondément atteinte à la dignité et aux objectifs de carrière du fonctionnaire (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4523, au considérant 11, 4345, au considérant 8, et 3250, aux considérants 9 et 10, et la jurisprudence citée).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 4345, 4523
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Le Tribunal observe […] que, dans son jugement 4961, au considérant 6, il a souligné ce qui suit en ce qui concerne les principes applicables en matière de plaintes pour harcèlement :
«Le Tribunal rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la question de savoir si l’on se trouve en présence d’un cas de harcèlement se résout à la lumière d’un examen rigoureux de toutes les circonstances objectives ayant entouré les actes dénoncés (voir, notamment, les jugements 4471, au considérant 18, et 4241, au considérant 9), et l’accusation de harcèlement doit être corroborée par des faits précis dont la preuve incombe à la personne qui affirme en avoir été victime, étant entendu qu’elle n’a pas à démontrer que la personne accusée aurait agi intentionnellement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4344, au considérant 3, 3871, au considérant 12, et 3692, au considérant 18). Lorsqu’une procédure spécifique est prévue par l’organisation concernée, elle doit être suivie et les règles doivent être correctement appliquées. Le Tribunal a également jugé que l’enquête doit être objective, rigoureuse et approfondie, en ce sens qu’elle doit être menée d’une manière permettant de s’enquérir de tous les faits pertinents sans pour autant compromettre la réputation de la personne mise en cause et en donnant à celle-ci la possibilité de vérifier les preuves avancées à son encontre et de répondre aux accusations formulées (voir, notamment, les jugements 4663, au considérant 11, 4253, au considérant 3, 3314, au considérant 14, et 2771, au considérant 15). Il est toutefois entendu qu’un fonctionnaire qui affirme être ou avoir été victime de harcèlement n’a pas besoin de démontrer, pas plus que la personne ou l’organe chargé(e) d’évaluer la plainte, que les faits permettent d’établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable le caractère effectif du harcèlement (voir, en ce sens, les jugements 4663, au considérant 12, et 4289, au considérant 10). L’élément essentiel dans la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement demeure la perception que la personne concernée peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos qui sont propres à la dévaloriser ou à l’humilier (voir les jugements 4663, au considérant 13, et 4541, au considérant 8).»
(Voir également le jugement 4900, au considérant 18.)
Le Tribunal considère que cette jurisprudence trouve également à s’appliquer, mutatis mutandis, en matière de plaintes pour harcèlement institutionnel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692, 3871, 4241, 4344, 4471, 4663, 4900, 4961
Keywords:
evidence; inquiry; institutional harassment;
Considerations 17-21
Extract:
[I]l ressort du dossier qu’il est exact d’affirmer que le Secrétaire général a analysé la plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel uniquement dans la perspective d’éventuelles poursuites disciplinaires, sans tenir compte du fait que cette plainte visait, du point de vue de la requérante, à la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement et comportait des revendications explicites de l’intéressée concernant l’impact des comportements dénoncés sur elle. […]
Or, devant ce constat, le Tribunal estime que la défenderesse ne pouvait ignorer que la requérante se plaignait expressément de harcèlement institutionnel à son encontre, que ses dénonciations ne se limitaient pas à l’adoption de mesures disciplinaires, ce qu’elle n’aurait du reste pas pu revendiquer vis-à-vis de l’Organisation elle-même dans le cadre d’une plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel, et que l’impact sur sa situation personnelle et professionnelle était au cœur même de sa démarche (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4663, au considérant 10). Il s’ensuit que, dans un tel cas de figure, le Secrétaire général ne pouvait limiter son analyse à la seule question de savoir s’il y avait lieu d’ouvrir une procédure disciplinaire.
Dans le jugement 4900, au considérant 31, le Tribunal a rappelé ce qui suit:
«[C]ette compréhension d’une plainte pour harcèlement, selon laquelle ce qui peut en résulter ne peut se déterminer que du point de vue des personnes visées qui pourraient faire l’objet de mesures administratives ou disciplinaires, fait abstraction de la jurisprudence du Tribunal en la matière, qui rappelle qu’une telle plainte compte également, à titre de partie à la procédure qui est menée au sujet de son bien-fondé, l’auteur de la plainte, et ce, même si ce dernier ne sera pas partie à une éventuelle procédure disciplinaire subséquemment entreprise contre l’auteur des faits de harcèlement reconnus.»
(Voir également, sur ce point, le jugement 4739, au considérant 10.)
Le Tribunal considère que cette jurisprudence trouve également à s’appliquer, mutatis mutandis, en matière de plaintes pour harcèlement institutionnel.
En l’espèce, le Tribunal considère que l’Organisation avait une compréhension erronée de ses obligations en la matière et qu’elle a manifestement commis une erreur de droit en n’examinant la plainte que sous l’angle de l’éventuelle ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire. Ainsi que le note à juste titre la requérante, si une enquête peut aboutir à l’ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire, il est juridiquement erroné de prétendre que ce serait là son seul et unique but. […]
Le Tribunal considère qu’Interpol a méconnu le droit de la requérante à ce qu’il soit régulièrement statué sur sa plainte pour harcèlement institutionnel […]. Eu égard à la nature de cette plainte, l’obligation de l’Organisation était d’examiner si l’intéressée avait été victime de harcèlement au regard des faits dénoncés, quelles que soient les conclusions auxquelles elle pouvait parvenir sur la question d’une éventuelle mauvaise conduite ou faute pouvant justifier l’ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire contre qui que ce soit.
Il ressort de la décision initiale […] et de la décision attaquée […] que le Secrétaire général ne s’est prononcé que sur le plan d’une éventuelle action disciplinaire, ce qui constitue une erreur de droit de sa part, qui vicie à la fois le processus suivi et les décisions qui en ont découlé. Ce faisant, il n’a en réalité ni examiné ni répondu à la question de savoir si la requérante avait été harcelée, selon l’évaluation de sa propre perception, et indépendamment de toute intention de nuire, malveillante ou autre, au regard de toutes les allégations qu’elle avait formulées dans sa plainte.
Dans ses écritures, la défenderesse soutient en outre erronément que le but de la conduite d’une enquête est d’établir la nature et les circonstances de l’affaire afin de déterminer s’il existe suffisamment de preuves pour justifier l’ouverture d’une procédure disciplinaire, qu’il est donc naturel que l’enquête tende vers la recherche de cette réalité sous l’angle de la faute et qu’il n’y a pas d'autre manière de conduire une telle enquête.
Or, en orientant ainsi erronément l’analyse dans la seule perspective des mesures disciplinaires qui pouvaient éventuellement en découler, l’Organisation a commis une nouvelle erreur de droit en recherchant une preuve d’intention de la part des auteurs présumés des actes de harcèlement, ce qui méconnaît, une fois de plus, la jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4663, 4739, 4900
Keywords:
institutional harassment; investigation; organisation's duties; right to information;
Consideration 22
Extract:
Dans le jugement 4900, au considérant 18, le Tribunal a rappelé que, en matière de plainte pour harcèlement, il est acquis qu’il n’est pas nécessaire que soit prouvée une intention de nuire chez l’auteur visé, l’élément essentiel demeurant la perception que l’intéressé peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos propres à le dévaloriser ou à l’humilier (voir également les jugements 4808, au considérant 17, 4663, au considérant 3, 4541, au considérant 8, 4207, au considérant 20, et 3318, au considérant 7).
Dans la mesure où il ressort clairement de la décision du 28 décembre 2018 que le Secrétaire général a expressément indiqué qu’il n’y avait pas, selon lui, de démonstration d’une intention de nuire, sa décision était fondamentalement viciée. Dans le jugement 4663, au considérant 13, le Tribunal a d’ailleurs relevé ce qui suit à ce sujet:
«Dans cette perspective, l’Organisation ne pouvait non plus ignorer la perception de l’intéressée en sa qualité de victime du harcèlement et son affirmation qu’elle s’était sentie rabaissée, dégradée et humiliée par les comportements dénoncés dont elle avait fait l’objet. Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a relevé de manière analogue dans le jugement 4541, au considérant 8, l’élément essentiel dans la reconnaissance d’un harcèlement est la perception que la personne concernée peut raisonnablement et objectivement avoir d’actes ou de propos qui sont propres à la dévaloriser ou à l’humilier.»
Le Tribunal considère que cette jurisprudence trouve à s’appliquer, a fortiori, en matière de harcèlement institutionnel.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4541, 4663, 4808, 4900
Keywords:
institutional harassment; malice;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant also alleges that the disciplinary sanction was the last act of a chain of institutional harassment against him. As already discussed, the complainant bears the burden of proving that the decision was tainted by bias, abuse, and prejudice. In the present case, the disciplinary decision had objective justifications and there is no evidence that it was aimed at harassing the complainant.
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment 4954
139th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s the complainant did not raise the issue of institutional harassment in his request for review dated 14 September 2020, his claim for institutional harassment is a new claim and is therefore irreceivable (see, for example, Judgment 4703, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4703
Keywords:
institutional harassment; new claim;
Judgment 4900
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.
Considerations 29-30
Extract:
Furthermore, paragraph 27.1 of OC No. 9 states that the receivability of a harassment complaint is to be assessed as from the most recent act of alleged harassment, which must have taken place less than six months previously. In the present case, as confirmed by the Subpanel when it found the complaint partly receivable in respect of some of the conduct of which Mr T.S. was accused, it has been established that one of the acts of harassment of which the complainant accused three of his supervisors in his complaint met that condition.
The Tribunal considers that, in the case of a complaint of institutional harassment such as alleged by the complainant in the present case, while it is true that the most recent act must have occurred within a period of six months preceding the formal harassment complaint, that cannot prevent earlier acts possibly involving other individuals from being taken into account in the initial assessment phase.
In Judgment 4601, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that, under its case law, the following should be borne in mind with regard to the cumulative effect of repeated incidents over a given period:
“[...] [F]irst, conduct over a period of time can inform the characterisation of particular conduct as harassment (see, in particular, Judgments 4288, consideration 3, and 4233, consideration 3) and, secondly, an accumulation of repeated events, as well as a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions, can be such as to have compromised the dignity and career objectives of a staff member (see, in particular, Judgment 4286, consideration 17). Indeed, harassment may involve a series of acts over time and can be the result of the cumulative effect of several manifestations of conduct which, taken in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see Judgment 4233, consideration 3, and the case law referred to therein), even if they were not challenged at the time (see Judgment 4253, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).”
In his harassment complaint, the complainant referred to the behaviour of three successive supervisors over a period of time, which in his view constituted widespread and continuous institutional harassment. The most recent behaviour involved Mr T.S., but earlier behaviour involved Mr G.L. and Ms M.L. This behaviour, said to include offensive or denigrating comments, a threat to rate his performance as merely fair, exclusions from group meetings and public reprimands or humiliation, was successive and continuous. However, the refusal to take account of some behaviour alleged in the complaint fundamentally flawed the Subpanel’s determination in the initial assessment phase of whether the complainant had presented a prima facie case of institutional harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4233, 4286, 4288, 4601
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; time limit;
Judgment 4703
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of the final investigation report.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The IAEA submits that the complainant’s […] ground concerning institutional harassment is a new claim that should have been raised internally and is therefore irreceivable. The complainant argues that his allegation of institutional harassment is a new plea that does not extend the scope of the claims already submitted during the internal appeal process. The Tribunal notes that the complainant has put forward a plethora of allegations of institutional harassment in his previous complaints before the Tribunal. The complainant’s allegation of institutional harassment is obviously a new claim and is not a new plea that merely serves to strengthen the legal argument by providing an additional reason to support the claim. Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4522, consideration 3, 4467, consideration 5, and 3945, consideration 4). As the complainant did not raise the issue of institutional harassment in his request for review […], nor in his appeal to the JAB, his claim is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3945, 4467, 4522
Keywords:
institutional harassment; new claim;
Judgment 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that “decisions which appear to be managerially justified when taken individually, can amount to institutional harassment when the accumulation of repeated events of mismanagement or omissions, for which there is no reasonable explanation, deeply and adversely affect the staff member’s dignity and career objectives” (see, for example, Judgment 4345, consideration 8; see also Judgments 3250, 4111 and 4243).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 4111, 4243, 4345
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment;
Judgment 4345
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to extend his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, decisions which appear to be managerially justified when taken individually, can amount to institutional harassment when the accumulation of repeated events of mismanagement or omissions, for which there is no reasonable explanation, deeply and adversely affect the staff member’s dignity and career objectives (see, for example, Judgments 3250, 4111 and 4243).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 4111, 4243
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
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.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; institutional harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 4243
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 25
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a long series of examples of mismanagement or omissions which have compromised the dignity and career of an employee may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9).
In the instant case, although a number of pleas made by the complainant have been rejected, the Tribunal has noted in the foregoing many examples of mismanagement [...].
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a series of errors of management or omissions is not, in itself, sufficient to establish institutional harassment. Such errors and omissions must also have compromised the official’s dignity and career prospects.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3315
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is true that a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4110
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment 4085
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant argues that the IAOD and the JGP erred because they did not call witnesses whom she named or whose names arose during the course of the investigation. It is however apparent that those persons did not actually witness the incidents that were complained of, and, in any event, the relevant allegations identified in consideration 14 of this judgment did not amount to harassment. They were actions taken in a tense working environment in the context of supervisory responsibility pursuant to paragraph 6 of Office Instruction No. 17/2006. The incidents cannot be a basis on which to find institutional harassment and the complainant provides no evidence of actions or inactions on the part of the Administration that would constitute institutional harassment. Moreover, the evidence which she provides does not show that there was a lack of good faith that constituted gross negligence, bias or abuse of authority, as she contends.
Keywords:
institutional harassment;
Judgment 4039
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Considerations 5-16
Extract:
In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation that has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 2524, 2594, 2771, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Organization recalls, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to decide whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
However [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
Keywords:
administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4038
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to determine whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
However, [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
Keywords:
administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
Considerations 5-18
Extract:
In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation which has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 2364, 2524, 2594, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages but has adduced no evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to obtain such damages, notwithstanding that the events in question occurred some years before she filed her complaint. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. There is no ground for the award of exemplary damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the flagrant breach of due process, as well as for the institutional harassment which she sustained. These are grave violations, for which the complainant is accordingly awarded moral damages in the sum of 65,000 United States dollars. She is also awarded 3,000 dollars in costs.
Keywords:
breach; damages; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 3250, under 9, that where a specific intentional example of institutional harassment is not identifiable, a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by an organisation, which compromises the dignity and career of an employee, may represent institutional harassment. The complainant’s receivable grounds, which are set out in consideration 21 of this judgment, and the allegations proffered in support, if proved, can individually and compendiously be bases for institutional harassment. Her appeal, which was filed on 25 April 2010, could not have been out of time when one of her grounds of appeal is, in effect, that she had been and still was being prejudicially denied a fair chance of employment in the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
