Demotion (920,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Demotion
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 5160

  
  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 impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; demotion; disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4970

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure demoting her from grade P-3 to grade P-2.

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  It can be seen that the first order [sought by the complainant] […] is that the two nominated decisions be quashed. This is consistent with one type of relief contemplated by Article VIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, namely the rescission of an impugned decision. However, an essential element of the first order is that the finding that the complainant had engaged in misconduct, was erroneous. That is to say, no finding should have been made, or perhaps could not have been made, that the complainant engaged in the misconduct alleged. No arguments of substance are advanced, or probative evidence furnished, by the complainant to establish that either she did not work, without prior authorization, as a consultant to, indirectly, the World Bank in 2017 or that she did not give false information in the earlier investigation of other allegations of unauthorized outside employment […] there was clear evidence which the complainant did not effectively rebut, of a consultancy agreement she signed on 23 February 2017 to undertake work for 90 days starting on 27 February 2017. While the consultancy contract was being financed by the World Bank, the contract was specifically with the Georgia Innovation and Technology Agency. In the initial investigation, the complainant declared, falsely, in October 2017, that she did not undertake any consultancies for other agencies, that is, other than the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and SIDA. Accordingly, the finding that the complainant had engaged in the misconduct alleged was not erroneous. The foundation for the first order is not established and the order should not be made.

  Keywords:

  demotion; disciplinary measure; misconduct; outside activity;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; demotion; disciplinary measure; outside activity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4832

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.

  Considerations 47 and 49-50

  Extract:

  In support of her fourth plea, the complainant maintains that the organization furthermore ignored the principle of proportionality when it decided to impose a disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades upon her.
  The Tribunal has often recalled that, while a disciplinary authority within an international organization has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member for misconduct, the decision must always respect the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgment 3640, consideration 29). In Judgment 4697, consideration 24, referring to its prior Judgment 4504, consideration 11, the Tribunal indeed observed that lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though the decision in that regard is discretionary in nature (see also Judgment 4745, consideration 11).
  […]
  In a situation where the misconduct that formed the basis of the disciplinary sanction was, in the end, as properly noted by the Appeal Board, a failure to supervise a staff member, a demotion by two grades clearly lacked proportionality when balanced against the drastic consequences that a demotion by two grades entailed for the complainant, notably in a situation where, after close to 20 years within the organization, a demotion by two grades meant for her going back to a grade even lower than the one she held when she started at ITU in 2000. That demotion was moreover for an indefinite period of time and was thus punishing her up to the end of her career at ITU given her age and seniority, in a situation where the record was absolutely clear that she had no participation, no involvement and no benefit in the fraudulent scheme that remained undetected for everyone within the organization for more than seven years up until an external anonymous whistleblower warned ITU.
  The Tribunal considers that, in the present case, the Secretary-General could not, without breaching the principle of proportionality, impose on the complainant the sanction of demotion by two grades. This was an error of law and it amounted to an irregularity that vitiated the impugned decision, as well as the prior decision […].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4504, 4697, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; demotion; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4504

  
  134th Session, 2022
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote her from grade P4 to grade P3 for a period of two years.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; demotion; disciplinary measure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4447

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Olive Council
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; demotion;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4343

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  [W]hereas the Director General considered that the length of the complainant’s prior satisfactory service and unblemished record could, in principle, be mitigating factors, he concluded that these factors were outweighed by other factors, including the serious incidents of harassment which were complained of. He also considered it an aggravating factor that as a senior staff member the complainant was expected to act as a role model, and that he had failed to express remorse for the incidents at any time. The Tribunal finds that based on the foregoing, the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades, imposed by the Director General in the exercise of his discretionary authority, was not disproportionate.

  Keywords:

  demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;