Disciplinary procedure (509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary procedure
Total judgments found: 123
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3972
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; suspension;
Judgment 3969
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“[A]ccording 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).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Disciplinary Committee’s opinion in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the disciplinary proceedings and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is an opinion 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 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
Considerations 10 and 16
Extract:
The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed:
“The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. [...]"
[In the present case], the President has failed to adequately motivate his conclusions and decision for departing from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant acted in bad faith, and failed to adequately motivate his ultimate conclusion on the disciplinary sanction he imposed and the reasons for it with specific reference to all mitigating circumstances. His decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the EPO to enable the President to make a new decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3862
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
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 serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
It is [...] 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 reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; standard of proof;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]t is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of fact finder and determine, itself, whether the case is made out that the complainant was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Rather 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”, in this case the President.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; investigation; judicial review; misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; reassignment;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3944
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him following disciplinary proceedings.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that the sole purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether there are grounds for initiating disciplinary action.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the case law established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment without his or her consent constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order to decide whether there may have been a breach of an acquired right, it is therefore necessary to determine whether the altered terms of employment are fundamental and essential within the meaning of Judgment 832 (see, for example, Judgment 3571, under 7). In this case, the Tribunal considers that the abolition of the Joint Advisory Committee does not affect a fundamental and essential term of employment. Moreover, it cannot generally be accepted that the rules on disciplinary action are an integral part of the fundamental and essential terms of employment which induce a person to apply for a post or to remain in the international civil service.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832, 986, 3571
Keywords:
acquired right; advisory body; disciplinary procedure; discontinuance;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that in any case, even if the complainant did not attend the witnesses’ interviews, his right to be heard was not breached, since he was informed of the content of their testimony and given an opportunity to comment on it when he received the charge letter of 28 February 2014 (see, for a similar case, Judgment 3640, under 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; testimony;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; termination of employment;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was provided with summaries of the interviews of Ms E. and Ms B., as well as her own, and was given ample opportunity to comment on them, of which she availed herself. The auditors found that, in substance, the alleged statements had in fact been made by the complainant, based solely on the three witness testimonies (of Ms B., Ms E. and the complainant). The auditors were tasked only with a fact-finding investigation, so they made no qualitative judgement on the complainant’s statements in question and merely limited themselves to verifying whether or not the incident had occurred. Considering this, and the fact that the complainant had a summarized version of each of the interviews, she had all the evidence on which the authority based its decision (see Judgment 3863, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal stresses that the UPU is mistaken in relying on “confidentiality”, as stated in Staff Rule 110.4, quoted above, as a reason to deny the complainant a copy of either the investigation report or the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee. Clearly, Staff Rule 110.4(3) can only be interpreted as meaning that the deliberations are confidential and that the consequent reports are not to be published or shared unless or until the documents are relied on in adversarial proceedings, including in steps leading to the imposition of a disciplinary measure. While in the present case, the complainant had much of the information needed to defend herself (as the investigation was confined to the three witness interviews, of which she had summary copies), the only way to properly ensure that a staff member has been fully informed of all the evidence and other elements of the case against her or him, on which the authority has based or intends to base its decision, is to supply her or him with the pertinent documents. The UPU failed to do so and, in the result, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal assesses at 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
“The disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area” (see Judgment 3640, under 29). [...] Regardless of the situation, the complainant’s statements (not directed at Ms B. specifically but still referring to work colleagues) were beyond what is appropriate for an international civil servant and the Tribunal notes that her behaviour immediately following the incident was not “pro-active”. The complainant had gone to speak with Ms B. for other work-related matters, and only after realizing that Ms B. was upset and after being told by her that she had filed a complaint did the complainant apologize. Therefore the Tribunal finds that, in this case, it was not disproportionate for the Director General to impose the disciplinary measure of a three-month suspension without pay. In all the circumstances, and notwithstanding the conclusion that there was a procedural flaw, it is inappropriate to set aside the impugned decision and remit the matter to the UPU.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; proportionality;
Judgment 3888
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant objects to two deputy members participating in the disciplinary proceedings in place of two members who were not available for the rescheduled hearing date. The Tribunal notes that the complainant was notified on 3 February 2014 of the composition of the Disciplinary Committee, including of the names of the Chairman, the four members, and the four deputy members. She had five days from that notification to object to any of the members or deputy members in accordance with Article 98(5) of the Service Regulations, which provides, in relevant part, that “[w]ithin five days of the drawing of lots for forming the Disciplinary Committee, the employee concerned may make objection in respect of any of its members other than the Chairman”. As she did not object to the deputy members at that time, she was time-barred from objecting to their participation at the later date when she was informed that they would attend the hearing in place of the two unavailable members.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; due process;
Judgment 3887
124th Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; health reasons; misconduct;
Judgment 3882
124th Session, 2017
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 with immediate effect for misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its consistent case law as to the scope of its review powers in a disciplinary case as stated, for example, in consideration 6 of Judgment 3757:
“[I]t 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).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; judicial review;
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is settled principle that the organization must prove its case against a complainant in a disciplinary matter such as this beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant argues that the FAO did not meet that standard of proof in the present case. The Tribunal’s approach when this issue is raised was stated, for example, in consideration 14 of Judgment 3649, as follows:
“At this juncture, it is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. 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’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; evidence;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3880
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
It is “well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed” (Judgment 3649, under 14). It is also well established that a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (Judgment 2879, under 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (Judgment 2849, under 16). It is observed that the FAO did not cite nor is there any support in the case law for its position before the Appeals Committee that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply in this case. Moreover, it conflates two distinct parts of the misconduct process: the finding of misconduct (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and the subsequent imposition of an appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
Based on a reading of the Appeals Committee’s report and the Director-General’s impugned decision, it appears that in each instance the standard of proof applied was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct is a far less onerous evidentiary burden than the requisite “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The application of the incorrect standard of proof is a fundamental error of law and requires, on this ground alone, that the impugned decision be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2849, 2879, 3649
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof;
Consideration 22
Extract:
Although the disciplinary process itself was lengthy, given the complexity of the case, the time necessary to properly respond to the complainant’s numerous requests and the time necessary to assess the evidence and to determine what charges, if any, should be made, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings.
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3875
124th Session, 2017
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the employee did indeed engage in the conduct of which she or he is accused. If the facts are disputed and there is no persuasive material evidence, the facts of the dispute must be appraised on the basis of conclusive circumstantial evidence. Thus, the facts may be held to be established when a set of precise presumptions and concurring circumstantial evidence enable the decision-making authority to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the person concerned is guilty (see, in particular, Judgments 2786, under 9, 2849, under 16, and 3297, under 8).
When a complaint is filed seeking the setting aside of a disciplinary measure or a dismissal ordered at the end of disciplinary proceedings, it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body, the members of which have already appraised this evidence, or in particular the reliability of the testimony of persons whom they have directly heard (see, in particular, Judgment 3757, under 6). This is all the more true when the evidence to be appraised comprises extremely complex technical elements such as those inherent to a process of computer hacking of the kind observed in this case. What is essential is that any person under investigation has ample opportunity to adduce and refute evidence, which has manifestly been the case here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786, 2849, 3297, 3757
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; hacking;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Established precedent has it that before adopting a disciplinary measure, an organization must first inform the staff member concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and she or he must be given the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings. The staff member must be able to express her or his point of view and participate in the processing of any evidence which might be considered relevant to discovering the truth.
The case law has also made clear that a disciplinary investigation must be conducted in such a way as to clarify all the relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee, and that the employee must be given an opportunity to test the evidence against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 2254, under 6(a), 2475, under 7, 2771, under 14 and 15, 3315, under 6, and 3682, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254, 2475, 2771, 3315, 3682
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; termination of employment;
Judgment 3872
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Considerations 2 and 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as 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 Judgment 3757, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law requires due process to be observed in disciplinary proceedings prior to imposing a disciplinary sanction against a staff member. As to due process in the context of an investigation in such proceedings, the Tribunal stated as follows in Judgment 2771, consideration 15 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process;
Judgment 3863
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]ccording 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; termination of employment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The question is not whether the Tribunal is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant revealed confidential information to Mr M. Rather it is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that it was open to the Registrar to reach that conclusion by reference to that standard of proof.
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3862
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of her appointment on disciplinary grounds.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; termination of employment;
Consideration 20
Extract:
[A]ccording 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649
Keywords:
burden of proof; disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3853
124th Session, 2017
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory service.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A] distinction can be drawn between an allegation of unsatisfactory service and an allegation of misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, and 1208, consideration 2). An allegation of unsatisfactory conduct must involve disciplinary procedures but this is not so if the allegation is simply one of unsatisfactory service (see, for example, Judgments 1501, consideration 3, and 1724, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1501, 1724
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; misconduct; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3848
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his special short-term contract for serious misconduct.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Although it is true that the non-renewal of a contract is not one of the disciplinary measures that the Director General may impose pursuant to Staff Regulation 10(b), it does not follow, as IOM contends, that the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract was a discretionary decision. A finding of misconduct is one that is only made in the context of a disciplinary process. For example, in contrast with an administrative determination regarding unsatisfactory service, misconduct must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard of proof that is only applicable in a disciplinary proceeding. Further, a finding of misconduct is the final step in the disciplinary process before the imposition of a disciplinary measure.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract was based solely on the finding of misconduct. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract was not an administrative discretionary decision, it was a disguised disciplinary measure and was unlawful. The case law consistently states that even if an organization’s regulations, rules and other relevant documents do not provide for formal disciplinary procedures, the disciplinary process requires that “before deciding a disciplinary sanction” the concerned staff member must be given “ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him” (see Judgment 3682, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3682
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary procedure; due process; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Having initiated a disciplinary process, fairness dictates that it was incumbent on the organization to bring the disciplinary process to a close. This necessitates a decision dismissing the allegations or the imposition of a disciplinary measure. This was not done.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 3757
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t 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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; manifest error;
Judgment 3649
122nd Session, 2016
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he complainant has not established any adverse consequences in terms of his ability to adequately respond stemming from the amount of time allocated to respond. It is also observed that he was granted an extension of time when requested and he was able to meet all the stipulated deadlines.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; misconduct;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
