Misconduct (392, 397, 498, 499, 507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943, 509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917, 642, 679, 820, 827, 652, 728, 860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Misconduct
Total judgments found: 161
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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 18
Extract:
[I]n the present case, since the complainant’s actions could constitute misconduct, the proper procedure to be followed was the disciplinary one, which best safeguarded his right of defence, even though his conduct could also be regarded as showing unsatisfactory performance.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 4764
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Judgment 4762
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
Judgment 4755
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the cases arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of two investigation reports. He also claims institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct;
Judgment 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
[T]he question of the alleged lack of injury suffered by the complainant in fact relates to the merits of the complaint rather than to its receivability, and the objection to receivability raised must therefore be rejected. Clearly, a complainant has a cause of action when seeking compensation from an organisation for injury that she or he claims to have suffered as a result of an unlawful act on the part of that organisation.
According to a general principle of law which the Tribunal applies in its case law, a claim for compensation can only be granted if the complainant provides evidence of the alleged unlawful act, of the injury suffered and of the causal link between the unlawful act and the injury (see, for example, Judgments 4156, consideration 5, 3778, consideration 4, 3507, considerations 14 and 15, 2471, consideration 5, and 1942, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1942, 2471, 3507, 3778, 4156
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; moral injury; receivability of the complaint;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct;
Judgment 4674
136th Session, 2023
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; termination of employment;
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
Certainly in the case of unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal’s case law casts a duty on the organisation to inform a staff member of their unsatisfactory performance and effectively give them a warning that their performance needs to improve otherwise there is a risk of dismissal. In Judgment 3911 the Tribunal said:
[…]
There is no bright line distinguishing or separating conduct which constitutes unsatisfactory performance and some conduct which can be characterised as misconduct. The same conduct may be both. Judgment 4540 illustrates this point. Plainly, there will be situations where conduct constituting misconduct which could not be simply characterised as unsatisfactory performance, can lead to dismissal without any warning. Obvious examples would be theft, fraud or a serious assault on a fellow staff member occasioning actual bodily harm. That is one extreme. However, in circumstances such as the present, where generally the essential complaint was about the management style of a staff member (albeit, in this case, a forceful management style characterised as harassment by the Organization), it could be expected that the person concerned would be warned or counselled that her or his management style needed to alter, perhaps even radically and quickly, and if it did not, dismissal might follow. That is particularly so if the conduct is remediable and specific aspects of the conduct are not, in isolation, egregious even if, cumulatively, they might be. As noted earlier in relation to these proceedings, this is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss the complainant.
Her plea that she received no warning or counselling and should have, is well founded. The decision to dismiss the complainant should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3911, 4540
Keywords:
harassment; misconduct; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
A difficulty with this approach of the Board is that while it may be true, based on its findings, that the complainant should have known, and possibly inferentially did know, “some” of her conduct was harassment, the Board made no finding that this was true of all the conduct charged against her as misconduct and proven to its satisfaction. This is not a case where each alleged act of misconduct was identified, separately, as warranting the sanction of dismissal. It was the aggregation of conduct “creating a hostile work environment over an extended period of time” which underlay the decision to dismiss. Additionally, one instance where the complainant had caused staff to cry occurred within two years of the complaint against her being lodged by the Staff Association in September 2016. Her complaint about lack of warning was directed to events over the entire preceding nine years comprehended by the charges, which events occurred, in the main, before 2014.
In the impugned decision, the Director effectively repeated this flawed analysis of the Board though, significantly, omitted the word “some” (referred to earlier) in saying that “the Board found that your conduct was ‘so clearly out of bounds that [you] could not help but know that it was improper’”. As just discussed, no such compendious finding was made by the Board in relation to all the conduct relied upon by the Director in confirming the dismissal of the complainant by rejecting her appeal. This material flaw in the analysis by the Director was compounded by her saying that the complainant’s assertion that the Director of Administration and the HRM Director “tolerated” her conduct did not provide the complainant with a defence when her actions were so obviously a violation of the Harassment Policy. This comment is not motivated save to the extent that it involved a purported adoption of what the Board had concluded. No such general conclusion had been reached by the Board […].
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; final decision; misconduct; motivation;
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 4598
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The import of some of the pleas of WHO was that the Tribunal should, itself, determine whether the complainant’s conduct constituted misconduct. This is not the Tribunal’s role (see Judgments 4491, consideration 19, 4362, consideration 7, and 3831, consideration 28).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831, 4362, 4491
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Judgment 4497
134th Session, 2022
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Two things can be noted about [Staff Rule 2 5.04]. The first is that it mandates consultation with the JADB before a disciplinary measure is taken (other than a written warning or reprimand) subject to a proviso. The proviso is that if the Director General is of the opinion that the staff member’s conduct is a particularly serious misconduct, the staff member can be dismissed without notice and without consulting the JADB. The word “particularly” signifies that the conduct in question has to be more than serious misconduct. That is to say, it needs to be serious misconduct but of a higher order of seriousness.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; interpretation; misconduct;
Judgment 4491
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; family allowance; misconduct; reinstatement; summary dismissal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The majority [of the Disciplinary Committee] expressed its finding about the conduct of the complainant. It recommended the sanction of downgrading. It observed that it was the duty of an EPO employee to disclose all facts that could possibly be relevant “for taking a correct decision about benefits allocated to [an] employee” and a failure to do so was misconduct. But this was not the misconduct charged. What was alleged against the complainant was that she had misrepresented her true status and had engaged in fraud. Fraud entails an intention to obtain financial advantage by deception (see, for example, Judgments 4238, consideration 5, and 3402, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3402, 4238
Keywords:
disciplinary charges; disciplinary procedure; fraud; misconduct;
Consideration 23
Extract:
[There was] manifest moral damage, involving considerable personal distress, occasioned to the complainant by her being investigated, charged with fraudulent misconduct, found to have engaged in that misconduct and ultimately dismissed. Those moral damages are assessed in the sum of 30,000 euros.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; moral injury;
Judgment 4454
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to reject his allegations of misconduct on the part of the Secretary-General.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct;
Judgment 4452
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to suspend him with pay and then without pay during the disciplinary procedure for misconduct as well as the appointment of a colleague to what he describes as his “job and functions”.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4415
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; health reasons; medical grounds; misconduct; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4373
131st Session, 2021
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgments 4039, consideration 3, 4038, consideration 3, 3236, consideration 12, and 2364, considerations 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236, 4038, 4039
Keywords:
investigation; misconduct; opening of an investigation;
Judgment 4364
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
It has been clearly established in the Tribunal’s case law that misconduct must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 12, 4227, consideration 6, and 4106, consideration 11, as well as the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4106, 4227, 4247
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; termination of employment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
In Judgment 4227, consideration 6, the Tribunal said: “The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, was summarised in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the ‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).” Also, in Judgment 4247, consideration 12, in response to a similar argument made by the complainant in that case, the Tribunal said: “It is clear that the facts underlying the charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the ‘clear and convincing evidence standard’ does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was met. As the assertion that [the Organization] failed to prove the complainant’s misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt is unfounded, it is rejected.” In the present case, even though the Disciplinary Committee did not expressly use the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”, the Tribunal finds that the complainant’s misconduct was in fact proven to that standard.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862, 4227, 4247
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; misconduct; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4362
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
Considerations 7-8 and 10
Extract:
The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).
The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4361
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has long recognised that the principle of equal treatment cannot be invoked to protect misconduct (see Judgment 3575, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein). By parity of reasoning, it cannot be invoked in relation to suspension during investigation of misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
Judgment 4360
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
[...]
The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.
Keywords:
beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 4359
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has long recognised that the principle of equal treatment cannot be invoked to protect misconduct (see Judgment 3575, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein). By parity of reasoning, it cannot be invoked in relation to suspension during investigation of misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
