Harassment (642, 679, 820, 827,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Harassment
Total judgments found: 180
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4039
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 4038
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 4035
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses her former supervisor of moral harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Considerations 4, 5, 7
Extract:
The complainant objects to the fact that the Director-General, having recognised that the decision to close the case on her complaint of moral harassment had been wrong, failed to initiate the investigation for which item 18.2 of the Human Resources Manual on anti-harassment policy provides when the preliminary assessment does not culminate in a decision to close the case.
However, like the Appeals Board, the Tribunal considers that it was by that stage no longer possible to conduct such an investigation, not only because the Director of the Office had left the Organization, but also because of the time that had elapsed since the incidents in question, which in particular made it difficult to gather reliable testimony from witnesses as to whether those incidents occurred and how third parties may have perceived them.
The Tribunal has already found in similar cases that when a harassment case has been wrongly closed, it is not appropriate to order that an investigation be re-opened if that course would raise practical difficulties of this nature (see, for example, in another case concerning a UNESCO official, Judgment 3639, under 8 to 10).
Furthermore, the Tribunal came to the same conclusion in its recent Judgment 3935, delivered in public on 24 January 2018, in which it ruled on a complaint filed by the complainant’s immediate supervisor at the material time, Mr E. Z., who likewise considered that the Director of the Office had harassed him.
This situation means that, as in the case leading to aforementioned Judgment 3935, it is impossible for the Tribunal, in the present case, to reach an informed decision on the merits of the parties’ submissions as to the existence and, as the case may be, the effects of the harassment alleged by the complainant. Neither the parties’ briefs nor the evidence tendered allow the Tribunal to rule on these points with certainty; this would be possible only if the findings of an investigation that was duly carried out at the material time were available.
Thus, although the complainant alleges, inter alia, that she was unduly divested of the substance of her responsibilities, unlawfully placed in a hierarchical position that was not commensurate with her grade and subjected to denigration of her work and other humiliating statements and conduct, the evidence on file does not permit a determination as to whether some of these incidents actually took place and whether, viewed as a whole, they constituted harassment or instead resulted from acceptable management decisions or sheer tactlessness. Furthermore, whilst the complainant plainly had a very difficult relationship with the Director of the Office, that circumstance, which may well be explained by work-related conflicts or even by purely personal antagonism, does not in itself support a finding that the complainant was, as she alleges, a victim of systematic discrimination, retaliation or other conduct amounting to harassment. [...]
Nevertheless, the fact that it is impossible for the complainant to have her internal complaint of harassment examined owing to the failure to conduct an investigation at the time of the incidents constitutes a serious violation of her right to effective means of redress. It has caused her considerable moral injury which, in the Tribunal’s view, justifies a higher amount of damages than that already awarded by the Director-General in the impugned decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3639, 3935
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury;
Judgment 4034
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims that she was subjected to harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and [...] an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see Judgment 3347, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment;
Considerations 18, 19, 20
Extract:
[T]he complainant states that after the Bureau of Field Coordination was abolished, she was not notified of her exact assignment. [...]
The Tribunal observes that the patently unacceptable situation in which the complainant and numerous other officials were placed reveals a management error by the Administration but does not constitute harassment. Under the case law, unsatisfactory conduct is not, in itself, sufficient to establish harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3625, under 9).
It follows from the foregoing that the complainant has failed to show that she was a victim of harassment.
However, although the alleged harassment has not been established, the Tribunal considers that the management error identified above placed the complainant in a difficult situation that caused her moral injury. The Organization must redress its breach of the duty to provide its employees with a safe and healthy working environment by the payment of damages, which the Tribunal sets at 10,000 euros.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3625
Keywords:
clerical error; harassment; moral injury;
Consideration 12
Extract:
Although the Organization is obliged to investigate any incidents that might constitute harassment, the employee must nevertheless report those incidents in good time so as to allow the Organization to fulfil its duty.
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and [...] an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see Judgment 3347, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3347
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 4014
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to investigate his harassment complaint by an external investigator and not by an investigation panel provided for in the applicable rules.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4013
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules.
Considerations 9 and 11-13
Extract:
Contrary to the FAO’s assertions, it did not adhere to the rules applicable to the investigation of a harassment complaint provided in the Circular. It does not follow from the fact that the OIGI based its conclusions on the FAO’s definition of harassment in the Circular, that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the FAO’s rules. It is observed that a “preliminary review” as conducted by the WFP OIGI did not form part of the investigation process in the Circular. As well, in contrast with the OIGI’s process in which a recommendation is included in its report, the provisions in the Circular limit the Investigation Panel’s report to the Director of OHR to its findings of fact. Further, the fact that the Investigation Panel had conducted “preliminary reviews” in its consideration of several harassment complaints without objection; that professional investigators commonly do preliminary evaluations of these types of complaints; and that this approach is recognized in the FAO Guidelines for Internal Administrative Investigations by the Office of the Inspector-General and the WFP Manual does not absolve the FAO of its obligation to deal with these complaints in accordance with the procedure provided in its own rules.
However, according to the WFP OIGI report, the OIGI and the Director of OHR (FAO) met on two occasions prior to the start of the investigation to discuss “the scope of the preliminary review, as well as to request for information on staff members”. The FAO Inspector-General also attended the last of the two meetings. Thus, it is evident that from the outset, the FAO Director of OHR and the FAO Inspector-General were in agreement with a “preliminary review” of the harassment complaint, a process not contemplated in the Circular. This, coupled with the fact that it does not appear that the FAO and the OIGI engaged in any discussion about the investigation being conducted in accordance with the provisions in the Circular, shows a disregard on the part of the FAO of the obligation to follow its own rules.
Although the FAO breached its obligation to deal with the harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules in the Circular, the complainant has not established that he was prejudiced as a result of the FAO’s action. Moreover, his claim that because of his membership on the Investigation Panel and his role as President of the Association of Professionals he was “single[d] out” and denied the same right and procedure as would be granted to his colleagues is also rejected. His complaint was referred to the WFP because of the conflict of interest problem and for no other reason.
Returning to the internal appeal, the Appeals Committee majority observed that there was no evidence that “OIGI conducted the investigation in a different manner than the way an investigation is undertaken by the FAO Investigation Panel”, and concluded that the OIGI’s investigation was “undertaken in compliance with the applicable rules specified [in the preceding paragraph – the Circular and the Rules of Procedure of the FAO Investigation Panel]”. As this conclusion constitutes an error of law, the Director-General’s decision endorsing the majority opinion is tainted by the same error of law and will be set aside. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the FAO’s breach of its duty of care in the amount of 1,000 euros. The complainant did not seek, by way of relief, that the matter be remitted to the FAO to enable further investigation to be conducted in accordance with applicable procedures.
Keywords:
duty of care; harassment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
In support of its position, the FAO relies on Judgment 3065 where, in consideration 10, the Tribunal stated:
“[...] an accusation of harassment requires that ‘an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused’. Furthermore, ‘[i]ts duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context [...], that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account [...]’ (see Judgment 2973, under 16, and the case law cited therein).”
However, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3365, under 26, it is also well settled in the case law that “when an official makes allegations of harassment, she or he is entitled to have them dealt with in accordance with the rules and procedures in force (see Judgment 2642, under 8)”. In the same consideration, the Tribunal held that “[i]f an organisation fails to do so, it breaches not only its own policies and rules, but also its duty of care towards the official”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3065
Keywords:
duty of care; harassment;
Judgment 4006
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 4005
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he fact of reporting unsatisfactory conduct may be relevant in a harassment case alleging retaliation.
Keywords:
harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 3996
126th Session, 2018
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; extension of contract; harassment; transfer;
Consideration 7B
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal held (in Judgment 2524) that harassment and mobbing do not require any intent on the part of the actors. In that Judgment, the Tribunal stated: “Harassment and mobbing do not require any [...] intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that IFAD was wrong to refuse the complainant’s request for disclosure of the reports drawn up by the AUO at the end of the investigation into the conduct of the two supervisors targeted by his complaint.
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a general 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, amongst 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 that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ 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 [applicable] provisions on this matter [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3640, 3732, 3831
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Judgment 3966
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the behaviour of his director which he characterises as harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Judgment 3965
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the EPO did not properly address or investigate his claim of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3935
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses his former supervisor of moral harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has already found in similar cases that when an internal harassment complaint has wrongly been dismissed, it is not appropriate to order that an investigation be re-opened if that course would raise practical difficulties of this nature (see, for example, in another case concerning a UNESCO official, Judgment 3639, under 8 to 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3639
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; harassment;
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
[L]ike the Appeals Board, the Tribunal considers that by the time the impugned decision was taken, it was no longer possible to conduct such an investigation, not only because both the complainant and the Director of the Office had left the Organization, but also because of the time that had elapsed since the incidents in question, which in particular made it difficult to gather reliable testimony from witnesses as to whether those incidents occurred and how third parties may have perceived them. [...]
This situation means that it is not possible, in the instant case, to reach an informed decision on the merits of the parties’ submissions as to the existence and, as the case may be, the effects of the harassment alleged by the complainant. Neither the parties’ briefs nor the evidence tendered allow the Tribunal to rule on these points with certainty; this would be possible only if the findings of an investigation that was duly carried out at the material time were available. [...]
Nevertheless, the fact that it is impossible for the complainant to have his internal complaints examined constitutes a serious violation of his right to effective means of redress, in particular as far as his harassment complaint is concerned. It has caused him considerable moral injury which, in the Tribunal’s view, justifies a higher amount of damages than that already awarded by UNESCO in the impugned decision.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complaint of moral harassment which the complainant had filed against the Director of the Office was the subject of separate proceedings, in his appeal against the decision not to extend his appointment the complainant also alleged that that decision stemmed from a wish to discriminate and retaliate against him which itself formed part of the harassment. [...] [I]n its opinion of 11 July 2014 the Appeals Board noted, before recommending that his appeal be dismissed, that “[t]he allegations on discrimination, harassment and punitiveness [were] the subject matters of another appeal and they [would] be decided on in [another] case brought before the Appeals Board” by the complainant.
In adopting that approach, the Appeals Board committed an error of law. If those allegations had proved to be well founded, they would have substantiated the existence of flaws rendering the contested decision unlawful; hence the Appeals Board could not properly recommend that the aforementioned decision be confirmed without first having determined whether they were valid.
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeal; mistake of law; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the manner in which the complainant’s harassment investigation was closed was abrupt, arbitrary, unreasonable and without legal basis. The Head of HRD could have at least explained to the complainant why in her view Mr L. was an independent and suitable investigator or in some way resolve that issue, without closing the investigation at that stage.
In the foregoing premises, and since, in the Tribunal’s view, it is necessary that this harassment complaint be investigated pursuant to the Global Fund’s rules, that matter will be returned to the Global Fund which shall take the steps which are necessary for that investigation to be properly conducted.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3882
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with immediate effect for misconduct.
Consideration 23
Extract:
The complainant alleges that inter-personal issues between him and his supervisor escalated into a campaign of defamation against him. However, he has not substantiated this allegation. Neither has he substantiated his further allegation that he was harassed and mobbed. He did not follow the internal procedures for lodging a formal complaint. Neither has he substantiated his allegation that serious procedural flaws in the course of the disciplinary proceedings amounted to harassment. Accordingly, these grounds of the complaint are unfounded.
Keywords:
defamation; harassment;
Judgment 3871
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to reinstate him after the decision to dismiss him was set aside.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has established that 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. An allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see Judgment 3233, under 6, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3867
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the WTO’s decision not to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3841
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post, as well as the earlier decision to reassign him to that post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Although the case law recognizes that earlier events may be invoked to establish a pattern of harassment even though they were not challenged at the time they occurred (see, for example, Judgment 3250, consideration 10), it does not follow that a new time limit for challenging these events is open.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250
Keywords:
harassment; late appeal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
