Summary dismissal (512,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Summary dismissal
Total judgments found: 43
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
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;
Judgment 1221
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of her summary dismissal for serious misconduct. Under the circumstances UNESCO Staff Regulation 10.2 lays no duty on the Director-General to put the matter to the Joint Disciplinary Committee. But that does not mean that the staff must "forfeit all the safeguards of the international civil service when they are to incur disciplinary sanctions. One such safeguard is their right to plead their case. The authority competent to impose the sanction has a duty to warn the staff member in clear terms of the intention of doing so and invite an answer whatever charges may lie."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF REGULATION 10.2
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; international civil service principles; organisation's duties; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal;
Judgment 969
66th Session, 1989
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The language (in the documents typed by the complainant) was obviously calculated to intimidate by threats to the life of senior officers of the organization. Participation in preparing such documents amounted to inadmissible conduct which fell within the prohibition of the Rules and merited summary dismissal."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 888
64th Session, 1988
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
The complainant was accused of submitting false certificates for sick leave and was dismissed for serious misconduct. He claims to have been unaware that the certificates were false at the time he presented them and that, while awaiting the outcome of the judicial inquiry underway, he should be presumed innocent. The complainant's dismissal was confirmed by the Chief of personnel. That decision was "defective in that it did not reply to the complainant's letter inviting the organization to wait for the outcome of the trial and did not require him to furnish his full defence. It was made without the complainant's having fully exercised his right to be heard." Because it is tainted with a procedural flaw, the decision is quashed and the Tribunal orders the complainant to be reinstated and awarded an amount equivalent to the pay which he lost between the date of dismissal and that of reinstatement.
Keywords:
amount; flaw; material damages; medical certificate; misrepresentation; moral injury; procedural flaw; reinstatement; right to reply; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 349
40th Session, 1978
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant's attitude and expressions were interpreted as showing a degree of disrespect to his direct superior, who had not however made any rebuke on earlier occasions and who found himself as negotiator in confrontation with the complainant in meetings on working conditions. "[T]he Tribunal concludes that any offence that was given did not deserve more than a reprimand." The selection of the appropriate penalty is a discretionary one, but this discretion must be exercised subject to the principle of proportionality. "[T]he penalty of summary dismissal was out of proportion to any offence committed."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; discretion; insubordination; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 210
30th Session, 1973
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the four crucial representations were false; the complainant bore responsibility for the four misrepresentations and they could have had serious consequences for relations between the organization and the government, all of which constitutes misconduct. But the complainant's motives were not corrupt and his previous record was satisfactory. Account should have been taken of attenuating circumstances. Summary dismissal was out of all proportion to the degree of misbehaviour.
Keywords:
contract; duty of discretion; fixed-term; misrepresentation; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The ignominy of summary dismissal and its effect upon the complainant's prospects are heavy additions to the consequences that inevitably flow from the termination of employment".
Keywords:
moral injury; professional injury; summary dismissal;
Judgment 203
30th Session, 1973
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Discharge and summary dismissal, by depriving the official of his employment, "may cause serious harm to the staff member concerned and to his family. In accordance with the principle that the penalty should be proportionate to the fault, they should, therefore, as a general rule be imposed only on a staff member whose conduct appears to be incompatible with the performance of his duties."
Keywords:
consequence; injury; proportionality; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 121
20th Session, 1968
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"The organization has [...] committed a breach of contract by suspending the complainant otherwise than in accordance with the Staff Regulations. Since his emoluments have been fully paid, he has suffered no material damage, but he has suffered moral damage. He is entitled to compensation for the distress caused by the abrupt way in which he was treated, tantamount in its form to summary dismissal, and for the injury done to his reputation and to his prospects of obtaining other employment."
Keywords:
breach; flaw; injury; moral injury; professional injury; provision; respect for dignity; staff regulations and rules; summary dismissal; suspension;
Judgment 96
16th Session, 1966
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's behaviour, in which he persisted over a period of several years in spite of warnings from the organisation and from the Tribunal, showed repeated infringements by him [...] of the Staff Regulations and was of a nature to throw public discredit on the organisation; it thus constituted serious misconduct under which [the applicable provision] was such as legally to justify his summary dismissal without notice."
Keywords:
conduct; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment; vexatious complaint; warning;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
