Deference (742,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Deference
Total judgments found: 10

• Judgment 4945

  
  139th Session, 2025
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to confirm the allegations of sexual harassment against him, to impose on him a ban from all future employment with the FAO/World Food Programme, to include his name in the United Nations Clear Check screening database for perpetrators of sexual harassment, not to renew his short-term contract following a mandatory break in service, and to place a note in his personnel file confirming this.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s assessment of the investigation that had been undertaken by OIGI is that it was thorough and balanced. Its report was cogent and persuasive. It is not for the Tribunal to itself determine whether the conduct of the subject of the grievance has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there was evidence before the decision-maker which would justify such a decision by that decision-maker (see, for example, Judgment 3964, consideration 13). In this case there was. More generally, the Tribunal will accept findings of fact by investigative bodies, particularly when they have heard evidence from witnesses (as happened in this case) in the absence of manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3964, 4237
  

  Keywords:

  decision-maker; deference; discretion; internal appeals body; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4850

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The role, factual findings and conclusions of an appeal body can assume some significance in proceedings in the Tribunal, particularly in relation to findings of fact. This issue was discussed in Judgment 4488, consideration 7:
  “The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).”
  It was also discussed in Judgment 3422, consideration 3:
  “At this point, it is appropriate to note the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2295, consideration 10, that it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeals board and the conclusions of the board are entitled to considerable deference. While the case leading to Judgment 2295 involved the evaluation of evidence from witnesses about allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour in the workplace, the evaluation by any internal appeal body of matters with which they are likely to be familiar, must be given significant weight as long as the Tribunal is satisfied the appeal body has undertaken a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and the applicable principles and its conclusions are rational and balanced.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 2295, 3400, 3422, 3608, 4407, 4488
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4848

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [T]he role and significance of an Appeals Board opinion should be noted. It was discussed in Judgment 4488, consideration 7:
  “The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).”
  It was also discussed in Judgment 3422, consideration 3:
  “At this point, it is appropriate to note the observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2295, consideration 10, that it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeals board and the conclusions of the board are entitled to considerable deference. While the case leading to Judgment 2295 involved the evaluation of evidence from witnesses about allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour in the workplace, the evaluation by any internal appeal body of matters with which they are likely to be familiar, must be given significant weight as long as the Tribunal is satisfied the appeal body has undertaken a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the evidence and the applicable principles and its conclusions are rational and balanced.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3422, 3608, 4407, 4488
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4754

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  It should be observed [...] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; deference; harassment; investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4753

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  It should be observed […] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4488

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her to another post.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law establishes in, for example, Judgment 4407, at consideration 3, that an internal appeal body’s report warrants considerable deference in circumstances where its report involves a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal, as it does in this case, and on its analysis its conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational, as again they are in this case (see also Judgments 3608, consideration 7, 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608, 4407
  

  Keywords:

  deference; report of the internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4207

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [I]t must also be observed that it is well settled in the case law that “it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where [an investigative body] has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error” (see Judgment 3593, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence; inquiry; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4010

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Appeals Committee’s report in the present matter, as it was in Judgment 3969, consideration 11, is a mostly balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3969
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• 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 14

  Extract:

  Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, a reading of the report shows that the DAB engaged in an in-depth consideration of the complainant’s and Ms M.’s submissions, reviewed the relevant case law, specifically considered each of the alleged forms of harassment, the issue of retaliation, and carefully weighed the evidence with which it was provided. It is also observed that the DAB’s conclusions and recommendations were based on a thorough and balanced consideration of all the relevant facts and case law. It is now well established in the case law that such a report warrants considerable deference (see, for example, Judgment 3969, consideration 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969
  

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3858

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he report, findings and conclusions of the Appeals Board should be treated with considerable deference.

  Keywords:

  deference; internal appeals body;