ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Summary dismissal (512,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Summary dismissal
Total judgments found: 31

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4311


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 4310


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; misconduct; summary dismissal;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The unlawfulness of the procedure which led to the complainant’s summary dismissal and its excessive length caused moral injury to the complainant, who was suspended without salary and remained uncertain as to his professional situation for an unacceptably long time.

    Keywords:

    moral injury; summary dismissal; suspension;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3640


    122nd Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; plenary judgment; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;

    Considerations 29-31

    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.
    In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the acts of sexual harassment of which the complainant was accused are undeniably serious on account of their nature and their repetition. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence in the file that their gravity is exacerbated by two particular circumstances which must be emphasised here. First, it appears from the investigation report, inter alia, that many of the persons subjected by the complainant to the unwelcome behaviour in question were young women who did not hold a permanent appointment and who were therefore in a precarious situation which made it difficult for them to protest, let alone report it, especially as the complainant often had the power to influence the progress of their career. Secondly, it is plain from the file that, [...] after protests from several of his colleagues, the complainant had received various warnings about the inappropriate nature of his conduct. Thus, even assuming that the complainant had not instinctively realised it, he could not thereafter have been unaware that his behaviour towards the women who had to work alongside him was perceived by them to be improper, offensive and extremely unpleasant. This did not, however, prevent him from repeating his reprehensible conduct on many occasions, since further incidents occurred [...].
    Having regard to these various considerations, and even though the complainant’s record of service with the Organization was otherwise excellent, the Tribunal finds that, in this case, the Director-General did not adopt a disproportionate disciplinary measure when she decided on the complainant’s summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; proportionality; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3602


    121st Session, 2016
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former employee of the WTO, contests the Director-General’s decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3581


    121st Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3578


    121st Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 3295


    116th Session, 2014
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944

    Keywords:

    case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 512, 907, 999, 1082, 1133, 1212, 1228, 1251, 1384, 1395, 1484, 1661

    Keywords:

    case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 3083


    112th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; summary dismissal;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; right to reply; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2944


    109th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 50

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207, 1984 and 2773, the disciplinary authority has a discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure justified by a staff member's misconduct, provided that the measure adopted is not manifestly out of proportion to the offence. It cannot be alleged that termination of the complainant’s appointment, the disciplinary measure chosen, was manifestly out of proportion to the degree of seriousness of the acts listed above, notwithstanding the complainant’s length of service with UNESCO and her recognised professional abilities. The Tribunal therefore considers that, in taking this decision, the Director General did not exceed the limits of his discretionary authority."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984, 2773

    Keywords:

    case law; condition; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2816


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    "In his application for review, the complainant merely revisits and reargues the facts already considered by the Tribunal in his fourth complaint. The annexes which he submits in support of his application are all dated long before Judgment 2580 was rendered, and they shed no new light that could conceivably lead to a different analysis of the case. Therefore, there was no new fact which the complainant discovered too late to cite in the original proceedings and which would be such as to affect the Tribunal's decision."
    "In the circumstances, the Tribunal dismisses the application for review in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in Article 7 of its Rules."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2580

    Keywords:

    application for review; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; summary dismissal;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent has it that: «Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Court permit an application for review of a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal may therefore declare such an application receivable only in quite exceptional circumstances, for example when new facts of decisive importance have come to light since the date of the judgment.» (See in particular Judgment 350.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 350, 2580

    Keywords:

    admissible grounds for review; application for review; receivability of the complaint; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2815


    107th Session, 2009
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] attempts to raise in this complaint the same issues that were raised in his earlier complaint which led to Judgment 2688. The principle of res judicata must be applied with the consequence that, in accordance with Article 7 of the Tribunal's Rules, the complaint must be summarily dismissed as clearly devoid of merit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article 7 of the Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2688

    Keywords:

    res judicata; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2741


    105th Session, 2008
    International Olive Oil Council
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    When the Tribunal is seised of a complaint against a disciplinary penalty, it must quash the penalty if it is based on an error of fact or of law, overlooked some essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgments 2262, under 2, and 2365, under 4(a) in fine).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2262, 2365

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; discretion; mistake of law; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 2719


    105th Session, 2008
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."

    Keywords:

    censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;



  • Judgment 1925


    88th Session, 2000
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "There can be no doubt that theft by an official of an international organisation of goods belonging to that organisation constitutes serious misconduct which may warrant summary dismissal."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1878


    87th Session, 1999
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    The complainant called her supervisor a fascist while giving the nazi salute. She was dismissed summarily. "In the Tribunal's view, while the complainant's conduct was not such as to be expected from an international civil servant, nevertheless it was not so serious as to warrant summary dismissal. Her words were intemperate, spoken in the heat of the moment to a superior. That is unacceptable. There was an insulting gesture used twice which was particularly hurtful to [her supervisor], a German. Again, that is unacceptable. But on the other hand an apology was offered the same evening and again the next morning and a written acceptance was generously given by [the supervisor]. In the opinion of the Tribunal qualifying the incident as serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal would be a clearly mistaken conclusion to draw from the facts. Therefore, the disciplinary measure imposed was so disproportionate as to amount to a mistake of law."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; mistaken conclusion; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; supervisor; termination of employment; working relations;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; proportionality; reinstatement; summary dismissal;



  • Judgment 1831


    86th Session, 1999
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant was summarily dismissed from the organization for serious misconduct. "The complainant argues that the severity of the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Given the evidence of deep-rooted fraud and corruption in the office for which he was responsible, the misconduct was serious and the sanction fully justified."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1828


    86th Session, 1999
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "Even though the amount at stake was not large, an intent to defraud the organization is a most serious offence. The organization may expect the highest standards of integrity from its staff; it could not possibly just overlook the fraud; and there was nothing disproportionate about dismissing [the complainant] for the misconduct she had committed."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1639


    83rd Session, 1997
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Director-General took the view that since the complainant admitted misconduct there was no need to give her any opportunity of defending herself. "The defendant's argument is mistaken. Before it notified to her the decision of summary dismissal it had brought no charges against her, and she therefore had no case to answer. And once it had made the decision to dismiss her without giving her a prior hearing, it had already acted in breach of due process. [...] An international organisation must inform the staff member of any charges it is levelling against him and give him the opportunity of answering before it takes any disciplinary action: audi alteram partem is a requirement it must observe in all circumstances. [...] Even though she had admitted to the incident, she did not on that account forfeit her right to be heard, be it to make a plea in mitigation or to give her own version of the facts or to raise any other issue she wished in her own defence."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complainant; disciplinary measure; duty to inform; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1251


    74th Session, 1993
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. He says there was no fair and proper investigation of the charges against him. The Tribunal observes that the investigators failed to reach the complainant and "the organization made no effort to give him an opportunity of controverting or explaining the several matters which resulted in his dismissal. [...] Up to the time that the Joint Disciplinary Committee was appointed [...] he had no opportunity of explaining his position."

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. The Tribunal holds that though the Appeals Board "recorded in its report the organization's submissions on the facts, it did not come to any conclusion on them and indeed said it was 'extremely difficult to impute the misfeasances committed to the complainant'. The Director-General's decision is thus flawed with the wrong assumption that the Board had made findings adverse to the complainant."

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; flaw; internal appeals body; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. He claims payment of repatriation costs, to which he would not be entitled upon summary dismissal under Rule 109.9 (f). However, the Director-General agreed to deduct them from the sums which he allegedly owed the organization. The Tribunal holds that "since the dismissal was wrongful and the organization has failed to prove that the complainant owes it that sum, the claim succeeds."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 109.9 (F)

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; repatriation allowance; right; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top