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

Harassment (642, 679, 827,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Harassment
Total judgments found: 116

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

  • Judgment 4265


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

    Considerations 6-8

    Extract:

    A key element of harassment is the perception the person the object of the conduct ďmay reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate him/herĒ (see Judgment 3318, consideration 7).

    Several other matters emerge from the case law. Judgment 3318 [...] says, citing earlier authority, that there is no need to prove the perpetrator of the acts complained of intended to engage in harassment, an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts and the burden of proof is on the person who pleads it. That judgment also says, citing earlier authority, that an unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour is not enough to prove that harassment has occurred. In addition, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question, though an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken (see Judgment 2524, consideration 25).

    Finally, individual events may, over time, evidence harassment even if each of the particular individual events may be capable of being viewed more benignly (see, for example, Judgment 3485, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3318, 3485

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4253


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Every international organisation is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see Judgment 2067, consideration 17). It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgments 3071, consideration 36, and 3337, consideration 11). Having noted that no investigation had been conducted by HRD, the JAAB itself undertook a detailed examination of the allegations. Such an approach is acceptable if the examination satisfies the requirements of the Tribunalís case law with regard to investigations into harassment allegations: such investigations must be prompt and thorough, the facts must be established objectively and in their overall context, the law must be applied correctly and due process must be observed (see Judgments 2642, consideration 8, and 3692, consideration 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2642, 3071, 3337, 3692

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It is true that the acts to which these three pleas relate can no longer, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal. However, inasmuch as the complainant maintains that they contributed to the harassment of which he considers himself to be the victim, the Tribunal must consider them. Indeed, harassment may involve a series of acts over time (see Judgments 2067, consideration 16, and 4034, consideration 16) and can be the result of the cumulative effect of several manifestations of conduct which, taken in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see, for example, Judgments 3485, consideration 6, and 3599, consideration 4), even if they were not challenged at the time when they occurred (see, for example, Judgment 3841, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 3485, 3599, 3841, 4034

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is firmly established in the case law that the person alleging harassment bears the burden of proving the allegation (see Judgments 2745, consideration 20, 3347, consideration 8, 3692, consideration 18, 3871, consideration 12, and 4171, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745, 3347, 3692, 3871, 4171

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; harassment;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    In order to determine whether harassment is established, the Tribunal will refer to the Organizationís definition of harassment (see Judgments 2594, consideration 18, 4038, consideration 18, and 4039, consideration 16).
    [...]
    The three irregularities noted by the Tribunal, the first of which preceded the harassment claim by ten years and the second by five years, are unrelated and were committed by different persons. It cannot reasonably be concluded that, cumulatively, they are indicative of ďharassing behaviour of a discriminatory, offensive, humiliating, intimidating or violent nature or an intrusion of privacyĒ (Article 2.9 [...]) nor that they are consistent with the creation of an ďintimidating, hostile or abusive working environment or [...] used as the basis for a decision which affects [the complainantís] employment or professional situationĒ (Article 13.4 of the current Staff Regulations). In the instant case, harassment is not established.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2594, 4038, 4039

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4243


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering (see Judgments 3447, consideration 7, and 2642, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642, 3447

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    decision quashed; harassment;

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    Although the complainant did not provide a list of witnesses in her harassment complaint, she stated therein that she had named witnesses throughout that complaint wherever relevant. She identified about twenty-four persons with reference to various allegations of harassment which she proffered. Initially, between October and November 2016, the IOS interviewed seven of those persons and then transmitted a summary of their testimony to the complainant in December 2016 for her comment. In her response, dated 13 January 2017, the complainant noted that the IOS had not interviewed her or other witnesses whom she had identified. In March 2017, the IOS called five other witnesses. It called the complainant for oral testimony in May 2017. The IOS did not call some of the persons whom the complainant had identified concerning specific allegations, the UNAIDS Chief of Staff and the UNAIDS Executive Director in particular. This was in breach of proper procedure, particularly given that the IOS has not explained why it did not hear those persons (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3).

    There was also a breach of proper procedure when, notwithstanding the clear discrepancies between critical aspects of the evidence given by the complainant and the three persons whom she accused of harassment (some of which the complainant had detailed in her response of January 2017 and later in her oral testimony), the IOS did not call those persons again to clear the discrepancies (as contemplated by Article 24 of the Investigation Process) in order to determine the truth and properly establish the facts. Moreover, the IOS erred when contrary to the indication contained in paragraph 3.1.5 of the Policy, that harassment is normally prolonged and persistent, as well as the settled principle that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of an allegation of harassment, the IOS rejected each allegation of harassment separately without considering whether cumulatively they provided proof of harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; witness;

    Considerations 21-22

    Extract:

    In the Tribunalís view, the humiliating circumstances were exacerbated on the evidence, which the IOS correctly accepted, that the DXD/MER did not invite the complainant for whom she was the first-level supervisor to regular one-on-one meetings. This was an essential supervisory duty. The IOS found that the DXD/MER could not have reasonably known that neglecting to invite the complainant to such meetings regularly would offend, humiliate or intimidate her and that her harassment complaint did not state that the DXD/MER ďpersistently refused to meet with herĒ on that basis. According to the IOS, it was open to the complainant to request such meetings if she believed that they were warranted, and it noted that the complainant was also said to be reluctant to meet with the DXD/MER. It therefore concluded that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the latterís conduct constituted harassment in this respect. This finding was mistaken.
    Regular one-on-one meetings with the complainant as a Department Director to discuss technical and administrative matters, was an essential management requirement for the DXD/MER as her first-level supervisor. It was not dependent upon a request and justification by the complainant.

    Keywords:

    harassment; supervision;

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    [T]he finding of harassment, which has been reached at the end of proceedings to which the persons called into question are not party and in which they have therefore been unable to comment, may not under any circumstances be used against them in any context other than that of the instant judgment. The conclusion is, however, that WHO/UNAIDS, which have a duty to protect each of their officials, have incurred liability towards the complainant on account of this harassment and must therefore be ordered to redress the injury which she has thus suffered.

    Keywords:

    harassment; liability;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [The complainant's] claim for moral damages on the ground that there was excessive delay in the investigation process is well founded. The Tribunal has consistently stated that harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (Judgment 3447, consideration 7), and that the moral injury caused to the complainant by excessive delay will be fairly redressed by awarding her or him compensation (see, for example, Judgment 4111, consideration 9). The complainant submitted her harassment complaint on 19 January 2016. The IOS called the first witness on 24 October, some nine months later. On 13 July 2017 it submitted its report to the Executive Director, who informed the complainant by correspondence of 13 September 2017 that the matter was closed. The duration of the process was excessive both in light of the Tribunalís case law and paragraph 2.1 of the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment at WHO[.]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447, 4111

    Keywords:

    harassment; moral damages;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Regarding the applicable general principles, the Tribunal has stated that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of these acts intended to engage in harassment, the main factor being the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him. The Tribunalís case law has always recognised that an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (Judgment 4034, consideration 16). An unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour is not enough to prove that harassment has occurred (Judgment 2861, consideration 37). The Tribunal has also held that behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question (Judgment 2370, consideration 17). It further stated that, on the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3996, consideration 7B).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2861, 3996, 4034

    Keywords:

    general principle; harassment;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated that it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in a complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. It noted that it is in fact often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where it may be impossible to produce material evidence. It has further stated that, more generally, the question whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see, for example, Judgments 3233, consideration 6, and 3640, consideration 14). The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding that Mr F.C. had testified that he sustained treatment that was similar to that which the complainant alleged at the hands of the DXD/MER, who was then his second-level supervisor, his testimony found no place in the IOSís analysis.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3640

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO raises receivability as a threshold issue. It argues that matters which are raised in this case are irreceivable insofar as they are covered by separate proceedings, including the complainantís first complaint contesting the decision to reassign her as Senior Advisor, SIE, and other proceedings that are being pursued by the complainant independently of the challenge to the impugned decision to close her harassment complaint. However, it is relatively clear that the allegations insofar as they may concern those other matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close the harassment complaint and the complainantís claims are cast no wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149

    Keywords:

    harassment; receivability of the complaint;

    Considerations 17-19

    Extract:

    Contrary to the IOSís findings, the Tribunal finds that there is sufficient evidence that the complainant suffered harassment over a period of time. The Tribunal appreciates that the DXD/MER took some of the actions complained of in the performance of her managerial and supervisory functions or out of the managerial necessity of the organization. The Tribunal also appreciates that the DXD/MER intended her Senior Advisor and the Director of her Office, Ms E. and Ms F. respectively, to assist her to coordinate her work with her four Department Directors, including the complainant. However, the actions were done in a manner which reasonably caused the complainant to feel that Ms E. and Ms F. were reviewing and supervising her work. It is also apparent from the evidence that misunderstandings occurred as to how Ms E. and Ms F. were to communicate with the complainant and the Tribunal accepts the complainantís evidence that on occasions she did not receive responses to matters which she raised. In the Tribunalís view, in these circumstances the complainant would have reasonably felt offended and humiliated. Ultimately, however, Ms E. and Ms F. were merely executing the orders of the DXD/MER, which also created an intimidating work environment for the complainant.
    The circumstances also lead to the conclusion that, given her administrative experience and knowledge, the DXD/MER ought reasonably to have known that the complainant would be offended and humiliated by the actions. Under paragraph 3.1.3 of the Policy, it was not necessary that the actions complained of were intended to have had that effect. There is evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that the complainant raised some of the matters that concerned her with the DXD/MER. For example, she raised her concern about the role that the Director of the DXD/MERís Office, Ms F., played in relation to her which occasioned a meeting between the complainant, the DXD/MER, Ms E. and Ms F.
    It is apparent from the evidence that, based on the orders of the DXD/MER, Ms E. and Ms F. did not operate within boundaries that the complainant was aware of, which could have prevented encroachment upon the functions set out in her job description. It is understandable that this caused the complainant to feel that the DXD/MER had inappropriately delegated some of her managerial duties to staff members in her Office. They held meetings with her in instances in which the DXD/MER, as her first-level supervisor, should have met on a one-on-one basis with the complainant as a Department Director. [...]
    The uncontroverted evidence is that the Senior Advisor had informed the complainant by email that she (the Senior Advisor) and the DXD/MER had reviewed the complainantís objectives together and that she would share their feedback with her at a short meeting. The DXD/MER had thereby clearly delegated her responsibility under the rules to the Senior Advisor, a junior to the complainant, to undertake that critical task which the DXD/MER was required to perform. In the Tribunalís view, given the latterís experience in senior management roles in international organizations and the leading role which she played in reforming performance management and the introduction of the new performance management system, the DXD/MER ought reasonably to have known that this action would have offended and humiliated the complainant.

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    [A]lthough the Tribunal concludes that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the DXD/MER intentionally set out to unsettle the complainant, the fact remains that taking all the circumstances of the case into account, the actions taken by or on the orders of the DXD/MER were liable to offend and humiliate the complainant. Moreover, in the Tribunalís view, a reasonable person would have found the actions offensive and humiliating. The DXD/MER ought reasonably to have known that those actions would have offended and humiliated the complainant, and that they interfered with the complainantís ability to carry out her work and created a hostile work environment for her, thus constituting harassment in the terms set out in the Policy. This entitles the complainant to moral damages[.]

    Keywords:

    harassment; moral damages;



  • Judgment 4238


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [The Tribunal's case law] states that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it (see, for example, Judgment 4034, consideration 16).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4034

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4233


    129th Session, 2020
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him compensation for the moral harassment which he alleges he has suffered.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunalís case law, harassment can be the cumulative effect of a series of actions which, in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see, for example, Judgments 3485, consideration 6, 3599, consideration 4, and 4034, consideration 16) even if they were not challenged at the time of the events (see Judgment 3841, consideration 6). However, firstly, the person alleging harassment bears the burden of proving the allegation (see Judgments 2067, consideration 5, 2100, consideration 13, 2370, consideration 9, and 2406, consideration 13) and, secondly, the only actions which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 2370, consideration 17, 2524, consideration 25, 3447, consideration 9, 3996, consideration 7B, 4038, consideration 18, and 4108, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2100, 2370, 2406, 2524, 3447, 3485, 3599, 3841, 3996, 4034, 4038, 4108

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; harassment;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment thoroughly and objectively (see, for example, Judgments 3071, consideration 36, 3314, consideration 14, 3337, consideration 11, and 4013, consideration 10). The OIE is under such an obligation even though the existing rules do not provide for any specific procedure to deal with harassment complaints. Indeed, it would be desirable for the Organisation to address this matter and to adopt such a procedure, possibly drawing on those which exist in most international organisations and on the case law of the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071, 3314, 3337, 4013

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; rules of the organisation;



  • Judgment 4219


    129th Session, 2020
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who had been seconded to the ITER Organization, challenges the decision to end his secondment and the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competence; harassment; ratione personae; secondment;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    While this complaint is receivable and one aspect of the complainantís case is well founded, the question of relief is problematic. In relation to the alleged harassment, he seeks an order directed to the defendant organisation ďto recognize that he has been a victim of harassment and compensate him for the damage he has suffered as a consequence of the harassment, in the amount of [euros] 50,000Ē. Even if it was appropriate, as a matter of principle, to make such an order, there is insufficient material before the Tribunal to undertake an assessment of whether harassment has occurred. Also, in the circumstances of this case, given that the complainant has left the ITER Organization, it would not be advisable to direct the ITER Organization to investigate his allegations (see Judgments 3639, consideration 9, or 3935, consideration 8). However, he is entitled to moral damages for the failure of the ITER Organization to do so[.]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3639, 3935

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; moral damages;



  • Judgment 4217


    129th Session, 2020
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to provide her with the record of the investigation that ensued after she filed a harassment complaint against her supervisor, and the fact that she received no compensation for the moral harassment that she claims to have suffered.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry;

    Considerations 4 & 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that IFAD erred in refusing to grant the complainantís request for a copy of the report established by the AUO at the end of the investigation in respect of the supervisor mentioned in her harassment complaint.
    The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), 2700, under 6, 3214, under 24, or 3295, under 13). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must forward to a staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, for example, Judgments 3347, under 19 to 21, and 3831, under 17).
    Of course, this obligation to disclose must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunalís case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnessesí protection and freedom of expression (see, in particular, Judgments 3732, under 6, and 3640, under 19 and 20). Moreover, in this case the confidentiality of some information related to the investigation was expressly required by the provisions on this matter contained in section 4 of Annex I to the Presidentís Bulletin PB/2007/02 of 21 February 2007 concerning investigation processes.
    Although it is true that IFAD produced a redacted copy of the investigation report as an annex to its surrejoinder, by refusing to provide the complainant with the report in question during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation. In this case, the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process. Indeed, the Tribunalís case law recognises that, in some cases, the nondisclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, 3831, cited above, under 16, 17 and 29, or 3995, under 5).
    [...]
    [I]t [...] follows from the above that the decision [...] whereby IFAD refused to provide the complainant with the investigation report drawn up by the AUO, is unlawful and must, therefore, be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2315, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3490, 3640, 3732, 3831, 3995

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; harassment; investigation; organisation's duties;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunalís case law, by virtue of the principle that an international organisation must provide its staff members with a safe and healthy working environment, it is liable for all injuries caused to a staff member by a supervisor when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to her or his dignity (see, for example, Judgments 1609, under 16, 1875, under 32, 2706, under 5, or 3170, under 33).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2706, 3170

    Keywords:

    compensation; harassment; moral injury; respect for dignity; working conditions;



  • Judgment 4213


    129th Session, 2020
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claims of harassment and constructive dismissal.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; motivation;



  • Judgment 4211


    129th Session, 2020
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what she considers to be an implied rejection of her claims of moral and sexual harassment and abuse of authority.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; implied rejection of internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted;



  • Judgment 4207


    129th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director Generalís decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he IAEA takes the position that having regard to the OIOSís operational independence, as provided in the OIOS Charter, the Director General was constrained by the findings and conclusions of the OIOS Report and by the standard of proof necessary to establish harassment identified by OIOS, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is convenient to address this submission at this point. It is observed that the operational independence of OIOS, as provided for in the OIOS Charter, concerns the independence of its internal operations. It does not in any way constrain or implicate the Director Generalís decision-making authority nor does it preclude judicial review of the OIOSís findings and conclusions underpinning a Director Generalís final decision. Accordingly, this submission is unfounded.

    Keywords:

    final decision; harassment; inquiry; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    A claim of harassment and a report of misconduct based on an allegation of harassment are distinct and separate matters. A claim of harassment is a claim addressed to the organization the resolution of which only involves two parties, the organization and the reporter of the harassment. In contrast, a report of alleged misconduct, based on an allegation of harassment, triggers the Appendix G procedures, a process that is directed at the culpability of the staff member in question and potentially the imposition of a disciplinary measure. In this process, the two parties are the organization and the staff member in question. In this process, the reporter of the misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment, is a witness and not a party in the proceedings.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; harassment; misconduct; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    It is observed that there are no specific provisions in the IAEAís Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that articulate a comprehensive procedure to deal with a claim of harassment of the type first discussed in the preceding consideration. In the absence of a lawful comprehensive procedure within the IAEAís Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to deal with a claim of harassment, the IAEA had to respond to the complainantís claim of harassment in accordance with the Tribunalís relevant case law. It is well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members (see Judgment 2706, consideration 5, citing Judgment 2524). As well, ďgiven the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself [...]Ē (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14). Moreover, the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Additionally, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, ďan international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor acting in the course of his or her duties, when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignityĒ (see also Judgments 1609, consideration 16, 1875, consideration 32, and 3170, consideration 33). Thus, an international organization must take proper actions to protect a victim of harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347

    Keywords:

    applicable law; case law; harassment; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The Tribunal concludes that the IAEA could have and should have given the complainant a decision regarding her complaint of harassment within a reasonable time following the completion of the investigation [...]. Rather than reacting promptly in relation to the complainantís claim of harassment, the Administration held this claim in abeyance pending the completion of the Appendix G procedure and a determination as to whether misconduct was committed. The fact that the Appendix G procedures were still ongoing did not in any way preclude the IAEA from responding to the complainantís claim of harassment.

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; misconduct; reasonable time; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    Taking into account the OIOSís conclusion that based on its findings [...] that the complainantís complaint of sexual harassment was credible and made in good faith; that no finding was made regarding the credibility of Mr A.ís denials; that a decision was made that Mr A. would be warned about his ďbehaviourĒ; and notwithstanding the fact that there was no independent witness present during the incidents, which is not uncommon and does not undermine the credibility of the complaint, the Tribunal finds that the complaint of sexual harassment is substantiated.

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; harassment; sexual harassment;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    Having regard to the distinction mentioned in consideration 14 [of the judgment] between a claim of harassment and a report of misconduct based on an allegation of harassment, the DDG-MTís decision concerning the complainantís claim of harassment is fundamentally flawed. The DDG-MT proceeded on the assumption that an allegation of harassment by the aggrieved staff member must not only be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the reporter of the harassment, but must also prove that the alleged perpetrator of the harassment acted with intent. This in turn resulted in the DDG-MT incorrectly applying the ďbeyond a reasonable doubtĒ standard of proof in his consideration of the complainantís claim of harassment. It is noted that the Tribunal has specifically rejected this assumption that intent on the part of the alleged perpetrator is required in order to establish harassment (see, for example, Judgments 2524, consideration 25, 3233, consideration 6, and 3692, consideration 18, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunalís case law states that the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment in a case such as this is not ďbeyond a reasonable doubtĒ but a less onerous standard (see Judgment 3725, consideration 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3233, 3692, 3725

    Keywords:

    harassment; intention of parties; sexual harassment; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 4185


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4180


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal would normally remit the matter to the ICC so that a proper investigation regarding the complainantís harassment complaint could be conducted. However, in this case, in view of the fact that the complainant is no longer employed with the ICC and given the passage of time since the alleged events leading to the harassment complaint occurred, remitting the matter to the ICC would serve no useful purpose. Nevertheless, since the complainant was denied the right to have her harassment complaint duly investigated, and also taking due note of the fact that she could have initiated the formal procedure directly with the Registrar in accordance with Section 7.1 of the Instruction, the complainant will be awarded moral damages [...].

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; harassment;



  • Judgment 4171


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is firmly established in the case law that the person alleging harassment bears the burden of proving the allegation (see Judgments 2745, consideration 20, 3347, consideration 8, 3692, consideration 18, and 3871, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745, 3347, 3692, 3871

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; harassment;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    duty of care; harassment;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Even though the charge of harassment cannot stand, an international organisation fails in its duty to treat staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury if the organisation is aware of an unhealthy working atmosphere in the service where a staff member works but allows it to remain without taking adequate measures to remedy the situation (see, to this effect, Judgment 2067, considerations 16 and 17).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067

    Keywords:

    duty of care; harassment; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 4167


    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director Generalís decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4158


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant submits that WIPO has not fully compensated her for the injury that she suffered as a result of being subjected to harassment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Where an organization establishes the existence of harassment, it should put an end to it as quickly as possible, restore the victim to a normal work situation and, if necessary, redress the injury caused. Ordinarily, this redress takes the form of monetary compensation for the injury suffered. It is self-evident that, according to the circumstances of each case, particular measures, for example supervision or support, may also be required. But an organization is only required to take such measures if they are essential or, at least, necessary.

    Keywords:

    harassment;



  • Judgment 4149


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and to place him on special leave with pay until the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    WHO raises a threshold issue about the receivability of the complaint insofar as it might be thought to contain allegations of harassment, malice, prejudice and retaliation being pursued independently of the challenge to the impugned decision to abolish the complainantís post. However, it is relatively clear that the allegations of harassment and related matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish the post and the complainantís claims are cast no wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 3688, consideration 1).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; harassment; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 4111


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    [...] According to the Tribunal, the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgments 4038, consideration 5, and 3871, consideration 12). Since in this instance some of the facts on which the harassment allegations are founded differ from one complaint to another, the Tribunal will not join the cases.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4038

    Keywords:

    harassment; joinder;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Where an investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal in principle remits the matter to the organization concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted. However, in this case, in view of the considerable delay occasioned by HRD and the JAAB, the Tribunal considers it appropriate not to remit the matter to the ILO.
    Since the complainant was denied the right to have his harassment grievance duly investigated, the Tribunal considers it fair to redress the moral injury so caused by ordering the Organization to pay him 15,000 Swiss francs in compensation.

    Keywords:

    flaw; harassment; inquiry; moral damages; moral injury;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [...] Although it must be taken into account that the complainant took a month to provide his comments and that HRD asked the investigator to respond to them, which may have taken some time, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
    The moral injury thus caused to the complainant will be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay; harassment; inquiry; moral damages; moral injury; procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that a number of witnesses be heard, including his former supervisor [...], which was refused. [...] Any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds. In this case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4110


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal, the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgments 4038, consideration 5, and 3871, consideration 12). Since in this instance some of the facts on which the harassment allegations are founded differ from one complaint to another, the Tribunal will not join the cases.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4038

    Keywords:

    harassment; joinder;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    Although it must be taken into account that the complainant took a month to provide his comments and that HRD asked the investigator to respond to them, which may have taken some time, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
    The moral injury thus caused to the complainant will be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; harassment; inquiry; moral damages; moral injury;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that the colleagues who had also filed a harassment grievance be heard as witnesses, which was refused. [...] In the present case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard; testimony; witness;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Where the investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal in principle remits the matter to the organization concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted. However, in this case, in view of the considerable delay occasioned by HRD and the JAAB, the Tribunal considers it appropriate not to remit the matter to the ILO.
    Since the complainant was denied the right to have his harassment grievance duly investigated, the Tribunal considers it fair to redress the moral injury so caused by ordering the Organization to pay him 15,000 Swiss francs in compensation.

    Keywords:

    harassment; inquiry; moral damages; moral injury;



  • Judgment 4109


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    harassment; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal, the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgments 4038, consideration 5, and 3871, consideration 12). Since in this instance some of the facts on which the harassment allegations are founded differ from one complaint to another, the Tribunal will not join the cases.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4038

    Keywords:

    harassment; joinder;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The parties do not dispute that the complainant had requested that the colleagues who had also filed a harassment grievance be heard as witnesses, which was refused. [...] In this case, the refusal, without valid grounds, to hear witnesses with regard to the complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Where the investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal in principle remits the matter to the organization concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted. However, in this case, in view of the considerable delay occasioned by HRD and the JAAB, the Tribunal considers it appropriate not to remit the matter to the ILO.
    Since the complainant was denied the right to have her harassment grievance duly investigated, the Tribunal considers it fair to redress the moral injury so caused by ordering the Organization to pay her 15,000 Swiss francs in compensation.

    Keywords:

    flaw; harassment; inquiry; moral damages; moral injury;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    delay; harassment; inquiry; procedure;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.02.2020 ^ top