Due process (187,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Due process
Total judgments found: 185
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
Judgment 4800
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her requests for special leave for very serious illness of a child.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]llowing the complainant to access this benefit would entail the redefinition of her requests, since they referred to special leave for “very serious illness”, rather than “serious illness”, of a child. However, in this area, the Organisation should not adopt an excessively formalistic approach towards its employees [...].
Keywords:
due process; sick leave;
Judgment 4770
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the cross-examination of witnesses is not a requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings, provided that due process be ensured by other means. In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that due process was respected, despite the fact that the complainant had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Indeed, he was informed of the precise allegations made against him and was provided with the verbatim records of the statements of the witnesses. He was thus able to confront and test the evidence, even though he was not present when the statements were made and was not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the investigation relied not only on the statements rendered by three witnesses, but also on documentary evidence.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4739
137th Session, 2024
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 close his harassment complaint and not to provide him with a copy of the investigation report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed in part; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; order to communicate a report;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Since the complainant was denied due process in the internal appeal and was unlawfully deprived of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process, he will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 15,000 euros.
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; moral damages;
Consideration 10
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s argument that his due process rights were violated, the Tribunal recalls its case law, recently confirmed in Judgment 4313, consideration 7, that “a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37)”, as well as that “in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4)”. Also, in Judgment 4217, consideration 4, the Tribunal held that “by refusing to provide the complainant with the [investigation] report […] during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation” and “the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process”.
In Judgment 4547, consideration 10, the Tribunal held that:
“It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an international organisation is bound to grant a request from the staff member concerned for a copy of the report delivered by the investigative body at the end of an investigation into a harassment complaint, even if that means the report must be redacted in order to maintain the confidentiality of some aspects of the investigation, in particular the testimony gathered during that investigation (see, in particular, Judgments 3347, considerations 19 to 21, and 3831, consideration 17, and also Judgments 3995, consideration 5, and 4217, consideration 4).”
The legal vacuum in the Global Fund’s rules does not absolve the Administration from the obligation to disclose the investigation report to a person reporting harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767, 3065, 3071, 3347, 3347, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4217, 4313, 4547
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, recently recalled in Judgment 4547, consideration 3, “a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4547
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Global Fund’s refusal to provide the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, even with reasonable redactions to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of the investigation, during the internal appeal process, seriously breached the complainant’s right to due process. It unlawfully deprived him of the possibility of effectively challenging the findings of the investigation in the internal appeal process. It follows that the impugned decision […] was tainted by a fundamental flaw and must therefore be set aside […].
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeal; investigation report; right to information;
Consideration 13
Extract:
In the present case, the Tribunal does not have sufficient information that would enable it to reach an informed decision on the complainant’s harassment complaint. The investigation report before the Tribunal is so heavily redacted that much of the documentation relevant to the allegation of harassment, namely the witness statements, is omitted. […] In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to refer the case back to the Global Fund so that (unless the case is settled in the meantime): (i) the Appeal Board shall carry out a new internal appeal process, in line with due process requirements (including by giving the complainant the opportunity to comment on the investigation report and the evidence gathered, redacted as appropriate to safeguard the interests of third parties, in order to challenge or rectify them); and (ii) the Executive Director shall take a new decision on the Appeal Board’s recommendation.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; due process; internal appeal;
Judgment 4695
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring him to reimburse the undue payments of salary he received during absences that were declared to be unjustified by the Administration.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has repeatedly confirmed that a staff member must have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him (see Judgments 4412, consideration 14, and 2700, consideration 6). In Judgment 4587, consideration 12, the Tribunal stated that the failure to communicate important documents to a staff member before a decision is taken against her or him is a breach of the complainant’s rights to proper due process, noting in particular the following:
“[It] disregarded the rights of the complainant to proper due process in terms of communication of documents. The case law of the Tribunal establishes that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see, for example, Judgment 2700, consideration 6; see also, on the issue of breach of due process, Judgment 4412, consideration 14).”
The complainant’s first plea is therefore well founded. This breach by the Organisation of the complainant’s rights to due process vitiates the decision of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of 26 November 2019 on which the impugned decision of 7 December 2020 was based, which renders both these decisions legally flawed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 4412, 4587
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
Turning to the irregularity on which the complainant relies in relation to the proceedings before the Appeals Board, on the ground that there were two successive versions of the alternative opinion that appeared in the Board’s report, the Tribunal is astonished to note that, aside from the fact that the “alternative” opinion was in fact that of the majority of the Board, there were indeed two versions signed on different dates, being 9 May and 22 May 2019 respectively, by the three members of the Board who subscribed to it.
Other than mentioning that the Secretary of the Appeals Board forwarded the second report with “corr.” added to the reference, the Organization has provided no explanation for this, asserting only that the second version was merely intended to correct the first. [...]
In the absence of any explanation in the file concerning these different versions which dealt with the very question of the irregularities which allegedly tainted the Director-General’s decision, it is easy to understand the complainant’s confusion. What is more, in the impugned decision, the Board’s report to which the Director-General referred is the one which included the second version of the alternative opinion. That version merely attempts to explain why the procedure followed was correct, without commenting on the previous statement of three members of the Board that they “[found] few irregularities to taint the Director-General’s decision”, which implied that there were some.
Even if the second version of the alternative opinion of the Appeals Board of 22 May 2019 is valid because it was duly signed by the three Board members who subscribed to it and by the Secretary who forwarded it with the reference “corr.”, the Tribunal nonetheless agrees, in view of the unusual circumstances revealed by the evidence, that the complainant suffered moral injury as a result of the confusion caused by the anomalies described above, which will be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation in the amount of 3,000 euros.
Keywords:
due process;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]lso with regard to the video footage [...], the complainant takes issue with the fact that he himself was not able to view it, even though the Joint Disciplinary Committee had accepted it into evidence, and that he was therefore not able to defend himself effectively at his hearing before that committee, where he was questioned about the facts brought to light by that footage. That plea must also be accepted. Staff Rule 10.3.2(5) provides that “[t]he official concerned [...] shall have access to all documents and forms of evidence submitted to the Joint Committees”, bearing in mind that, although it appears that it was at the initiative of the Committee itself that certain members viewed the footage in question, that footage must obviously be considered as evidence submitted to the Committee for the purposes of this provision. This statutory requirement is in line with the Tribunal’s case law, applicable even where there is no explicit provision, under which a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base a decision that affects her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4343, consideration 13, 3640, consideration 19, 3295, consideration 13, and 2229, consideration 3(b)). This case law, which aims to allow the staff member concerned to comment on the evidence, applies to video footage as it does to any other piece of evidence, it being noted in this respect that, although such a recording by definition captures an objective reality, it is nonetheless likely to give rise to explanations and comments that may influence the way its content is evaluated.
It is not disputed that the complainant was not invited to view the footage in question, even though part of its content was used in evidence against him. The Organization maintains that this does not mean that the procedure followed was flawed, since the complainant was informed of the substance of the content of this footage during his hearing before the Committee and was questioned during that hearing about the facts that it revealed, which thus enabled him to express his views on this piece of evidence. However, this argument will be dismissed, as the Tribunal considers that in the present case it was essential, for the complainant to comment meaningfully thereon, that he be able to view the content of the footage for himself and that he be afforded this opportunity prior to his hearing in order to allow him time to prepare his defence. Lastly, while the Organization seeks to argue that the complainant had not requested access to the footage in question, that objection is irrelevant as the complainant had not been notified in advance of the Committee’s intention to use this piece of evidence or of its very existence, which at most he could have suspected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 3295, 3640, 4343
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Joint Disciplinary Committee’s opinion [...] shows that, when establishing the existence of particular facts and assessing the seriousness of the misconduct with which the complainant was charged, the Committee relied to a large extent on video footage of the incident [...] taken by a closed-circuit camera installed at the security post. The Committee used that footage to assess the complainant’s behaviour for almost two minutes before the unfortunate shot was fired, during which, according to the Committee, he stood by while his colleague carelessly handled the weapon that he had just given him. In the first place, this contradicted the account that the complainant gave in memoranda addressed to the Organization’s senior management and during his hearing and, in the second place, showed that he had failed to appreciate the danger of the situation.
However, it is clear from the details contained in the Committee’s opinion that the video footage was watched by only two of the three members of the Committee, who did so [...] between the Committee’s meetings. The Tribunal has already ruled in a similar case that such a practice is irregular in its very principle. Making clear that each member of a collegiate body has an individual responsibility to be fully engaged in the fact-finding process in the case before it, which involves the assessment of the evidence of those facts in terms of its admissibility, reliability, accuracy, relevance and weight, the Tribunal held that the whole panel of such a body is required to consider that evidence and that this responsibility cannot be delegated to one or more of its members (see Judgment 3272, consideration 13). This holding, which was applied to a joint appeals body, must also apply to a collegiate body dealing with disciplinary matters such as Interpol’s Joint Disciplinary Committee. The Tribunal sees no reason here to depart from the case law in question, which seems to it to be salutary, since it is unacceptable for a member of an administrative committee to deliberate on a case without having examined for herself or himself a piece of evidence examined by the other members – which is thereby placed, by definition, in the file of that case – especially if, as in the present case, that committee actually uses the piece of evidence in question as a foundation for its opinion. The procedure followed was therefore flawed on that account.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3272
Keywords:
disciplinary body; due process; evidence;
Judgment 4613
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 18
Extract:
In its case law, the Tribunal has recognised that decisions adversely affecting a staff member can constitute a hidden disciplinary sanction and if made without following due process requirements may be unlawful.
If the organisation’s rules do provide for formal disciplinary procedures, as is the case here, then they must be followed if proven misconduct founds or partly founds a decision to dismiss. That is not to say, in a case such as the present, the Secretary-General could not have relied simply and only on the alleged failure of the complainant to give satisfactory service or to comply with her duties and obligations under the Regulations, to use the language of Regulation 13a)i). He could have. But having regard to all the circumstances, it is clear in the present case he relied, additionally, on the complainant’s misconduct, which created the obligation to follow the procedures in Rule 24.1 to ascertain whether the misconduct was proved. The organisation’s failure to do so vitiated the decision to dismiss and it must be set aside.
Keywords:
due process; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Judgment 4586
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Rule 10.3 does not make any explicit provision for an official concerned to be heard before the decision to suspend her or him is announced. Indeed, suspension is an interim precautionary measure which, in principle, must be adopted urgently, and this will often make it impossible to invite the person concerned to express her or his opinion beforehand. Nevertheless, a person’s right to be heard must be exercised before the substantive decision is taken to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 3138, consideration 10(a), and 2365, consideration 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 3138
Keywords:
due process; right to be heard; suspension;
Judgment 4579
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, the verbatim record of the oral evidence gathered during disciplinary proceedings is not deemed strictly necessary. It is sufficient that the person charged in disciplinary proceedings be informed of the precise allegations made against her or him, provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the body in charge of the investigation, and enabled to comment on them (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4549
134th Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision to reject her harassment complaint.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The failure, without valid grounds and notwithstanding the discretion conferred by paragraph 9 of Article 13.4 of the Staff Regulations, to hear witnesses potentially supportive of the complainant’s allegations constituted a breach of due process (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3). The complainant’s allegation is therefore well founded. As this error of law vitiates the validity of the investigation report, which forms the basis of the impugned decision, that decision must be set aside, without there being any need to address the complainant’s other pleas (see Judgments 4313, consideration 7, and 4110, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4110, 4111, 4313
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4540
134th Session, 2022
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal as a result of disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he failure to give the complainant a written warning and a reasonable time to improve was an important factor to be considered in determining what was an appropriate measure having regard to her conduct, even as determined by the Director in the impugned decision. Indeed, having regard to the terms of Staff Rule 1070.2, no decision to dismiss should have been made in the absence of a warning and providing a reasonable time to improve. The measure of dismissal under Staff Rule 1070 was unlawful. Accordingly, the impugned decision should be set aside.
Keywords:
due process; patere legem; termination of employment; warning;
Judgment 4474
133rd Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application to review Judgment 4360.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for review; complaint dismissed; due process; evidence;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 15
Extract:
There is no general legal obligation on an organisation to give a member of staff an opportunity to contest a prospective decision to suspend her or him. Thus, there was no flawed procedure.
Keywords:
due process; procedural flaw; suspension;
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.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence and other materials on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and, under normal circumstances, such materials cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 14). It is also well established that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all of the materials an appeal body uses in an internal appeal, and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process (see, for example, Judgment 3586, consideration 17). These principles were violated when the complainant was not provided with her own copy of the external lawyer’s opinion before the hearing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 4412
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; due process; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 17
Extract:
The FAO’s failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the selection report, which it disclosed to the Appeals Committee, violated the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, impeded her right of appeal and inhibited her ability to fully argue her case before the Appeals Committee in full knowledge of all facts of the case. It thereby tainted the internal appeal procedure, rather than the selection process as the complainant seems to suggest. This procedural irregularity is therefore not a basis for cancelling the selection process as the complainant requests. However, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it rejected the Appeals Committee’s recommendation to immediately disclose a redacted copy of the selection report to the complainant and to award her adequate moral damages for the breach of procedural fairness (due process).
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal relevantly restated in Judgment 3586, consideration 16, that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and that, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. Such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers. Additionally, the Tribunal reiterated, in consideration 17 of that judgment, its consistent case law that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all the materials an adjudicating body uses in an internal appeal and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
Keywords:
confidentiality; due process; evidence; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4406
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of reduction in grade.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, as the complainant was provided with unredacted copies of the three requested documents before lodging his appeal with the GBA against the imposition of the disciplinary measure, he was able to rely on this material during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that his right to be heard and his right to due process were not violated.
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4398
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for a second payment of the lump sum paid in the event of death or permanent invalidity under Article 84(1)b) of the Service Regulations.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is noteworthy that in Judgment 2893, consideration 5, in reply to a complainant’s submissions that the internal appeal body did not afford him due process as he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, thereby denying him the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard, the Tribunal stated that neither the legal provisions governing that internal appeal body nor the general principles applicable to it require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. The Tribunal also noted that, as the internal appeal body considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties’ written submissions and documentary evidence, the internal appeal body was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case the Appeals Committee invited the complainant to present written submissions and she did. The complainant presents no ground that puts into question the impartiality of the members of the Appeals Committee or the lawfulness of the summary procedure.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2893
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal;
Judgment 4378
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant’s reliance on Judgments 3264 and 3137 is misplaced. It is recalled that in the present complaint the complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint against IOS. In the harassment complaint, the complainant identified actions taken by IOS in its investigation of allegations of misconduct made against him that he claimed amounted to harassment and abuse of power. Thus, in submitting the harassment complaint, the complainant was the reporter of possible misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment and a witness. Given that the complainant, in this case, was not the subject of the investigation process and, therefore, was not in an adversarial situation, as contemplated in Judgments 3264 and 3137, the principle of due process and the right to be heard are not applicable in these circumstances. Accordingly, the complainant’s submission that his right to be heard was violated is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3137, 3264
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation; right to be heard;
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.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law accepts that there may be situations in which an organization can refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process. An example is provided by Judgment 3640, where the issue of the need to reconcile the requirements of due process with the confidentiality of harassment investigations was dealt with in considerations 17 to 22. In that judgment, the Tribunal recalled its case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers)”. In consideration 20, the Tribunal observed that, “as is expressly indicated by the use of the terms ‘as a general rule’ and ‘under normal circumstances’ [...], the case law in question does allow some exceptions to the principle which it establishes”. The Tribunal held that:
“[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has 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 official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).”
It is therefore necessary to consider whether the evidence in the present case shows that the complainant was sufficiently informed of the content of the witness statements, even though they were not shared with him, as there would have been “a serious breach of due process” if he had not been so informed (see Judgment 3137, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3137, 3295, 3640
Keywords:
confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; witness;
Judgment 4313
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.
Considerations 5-7
Extract:
[T]he fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the witness statements during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw in the investigation procedure. While the Tribunal’s case law recognises that, in some cases, the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 2767, cited by the ILO, and Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not so where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, 3831, under 16, 17 and 29, and 3995, under 5). [...]
The ILO also refers to Judgment 3071, in which the Tribunal held that the failure to disclose witness statements gathered in the course of a harassment investigation could have been corrected in the proceedings before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. The Organization points out that the new procedure for the administrative resolution of harassment grievances does not allow internal appeals to be filed with the Joint Advisory Appeals Board when an investigation is required and seeks to argue that it may therefore rectify the investigators’ omission during the proceedings before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal cannot accept that reasoning. As discussed in consideration 3 [...], one of the advantages of the internal appeal procedure is that it allows the organisation to rectify certain irregularities in time. This is why, in Judgment 3071, the Tribunal stated that the witness statements gathered in the course of the investigation could have been disclosed to the person concerned during the proceedings before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. In that case, the evidence was disclosed before the final decision was taken and thus the adversarial principle was observed. The fact that such proceedings are not available means that it is no longer possible to remedy the flaw arising from the late disclosure of witness statements since they constitute crucial evidence on which the impugned decision rests and, by definition, proceedings before the Tribunal take place only a posteriori.
It should be borne in mind that, in the two judgments referred to by the Organization, the Tribunal emphasised that a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37). Those two judgments are fully consistent with the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which, in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315, 2767, 3065, 3071, 3117, 3490, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation report; witness;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >
|
