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 3836

  
  124th Session, 2017
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject her internal complaint of harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; internal remedies exhausted;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3831

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3777

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and his performance appraisal for 2011 to 2013.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  These allegations have been detailed as, even given the responses of the complainant’s responsible chief, they provide with some of the complainant’s other allegations, a case which required further investigation and consideration and should have been referred to a Commission of Inquiry for the conduct of an inquiry. For the omission to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry, the complainant will be awarded moral damages [...].

  Keywords:

  harassment; moral injury;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  The Tribunal stated the following in Judgment 3692, consideration 18:
  “In Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal stated that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisation’s 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 (see Judgment 2524), 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 Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8, and 3085, under 26).
  Furthermore, 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 Judgments 2100, under 13, 2524, under 25, and 3233, under 6, and the case law cited therein).” See also Judgment 3065, consideration 10.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3692
  

  Keywords:

  harassment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3737

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The case will be remitted to the ITU for a full and proper examination of the initial internal complaint lodged by the complainant [...] under the terms envisaged by Service Order No. 05/05, as should originally have been the case. Indeed, contrary to what the complainant suggests in his submissions, the Tribunal cannot rule at this stage on the merits of the allegations made in that complaint since most of them have not been subject to the prior investigations necessary to make an informed assessment, which the ITU’s internal bodies alone are able to conduct effectively. The ITU must therefore, within 30 days of the public delivery of this judgment, set up a new commission of inquiry to investigate the said internal complaint.

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; harassment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; late appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3732

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3695

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the EPO’s rejection of his two internal appeals against the Ombudsman’s failure to follow the formal procedure in respect of his harassment complaint and against the President’s decision to reject that harassment complaint.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3692

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant who, at the material time, was working as a patent examiner, objects to three of his staff reports, submits that he was subjected to harassment and challenges the rejection of his request for an independent examination of several of his dissenting opinions on patent applications.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  In Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal stated that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisation’s 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 (see Judgment 2524), 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 Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8, and 3085, under 26).
  Furthermore, 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 Judgments 2100, under 13, 2524, under 25, and 3233, under 6, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552, 2642, 3085
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; harassment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; performance report;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  The complainant has not provided any substantive, cogent evidence proving that his line manager’s actions or statements belittled or humiliated him and that he therefore suffered harassment. The investigation conducted by the mediator did reveal the existence of considerable tension between the complainant and his line manager, which had impaired their professional relations and had ultimately created a strained working atmosphere. However, the facts established by the mediator, viewed in isolation or as a whole, do not lead the Tribunal to arrive at a different conclusion than that reached by him, as summarised in consideration 17 [...].

  Keywords:

  evidence; harassment; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3682

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for gross misconduct.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  It is true, as stated in Judgment 1312, that matters within a staff member’s private life are relevant only to the extent that they may affect the staff member’s performance of official duties. However, an allegation of harassment is not about the performance of official duties. Instead, it concerns an employee’s conduct that has a deleterious impact on the dignity and wellbeing of another employee. It is for this reason that a determination as to whether any particular act or series of acts amount to harassment can only be made after a careful consideration of the relevant events and an examination of them in the broader context. In the present case, there was a real and substantial nexus between the complainant’s conduct and the workplace.

  Keywords:

  harassment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3663

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that his dignity was impaired in the context of his various transfers.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  [I]t is observed that the impugned decision “confirmed that the plea for harassment was summarily dismissed by the Director General […] due to the fact that no evidence was provided that such harassment took place” and that “[f]urther investigation into the alleged case was not warranted”. The Tribunal finds that the complainant has provided no evidence to show that that decision was wrong or that his harassment complaint is meritorious. This harassment claim is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.

  Keywords:

  harassment; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3660

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  It must be recalled that the Tribunal “has consistently stressed the serious nature of allegations of harassment in the workplace and the need for international organisations to investigate such allegations promptly and thoroughly. This is a function of the organisation’s duty of care to its staff members to uphold their dignity. […] It is in relation to this obligation that the Tribunal […] stated that international organisations have to ensure that an internal body that is charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning.” (See Judgment 3337, under 11 and 12.)
  Eurocontrol’s duty of care required it to forward the harassment complaint on its own initiative to the bodies which, it says, are competent to entertain it, or at least to provide the complainant with guidance as to the procedure to be followed, since the legal possibilities it mentions are far from clear to the servants concerned. In failing to do so, the Organisation neglected its duties.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3337
  

  Keywords:

  harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3640

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

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant submits that the facts considered in these proceedings should have been confined to those directly concerning Ms M. and that it was therefore wrong also to take account of allegations related to his behaviour towards other persons. However, contrary to what the Appeals Board seems to believe, in the context of an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint, it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in the complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. In fact, that is often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where [...] it may be impossible to produce material evidence. More generally, it should be recalled that the question of 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 Judgments 2553, under 6, in fine, 3166, under 16, in fine, or 3233, under 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 3166, 3233
  

  Keywords:

  evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
  

  Considerations 17-21

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant contends with greater cogency that he was never provided with the full content of the witness statements forming the basis of the accusations against him, nor was he informed of the witnesses’ names. It is true that the witness statements were not appended to the report drawn up at the end of the investigation and, as mentioned in a footnote in that document, the identity of the witnesses was deliberately not disclosed. [...]
  [T]his strict observance of confidentiality by UNESCO might be seen as departing from the Tribunal’s established case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers). [...]
  [W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).
  In the instant case, the investigation report contained an extremely detailed description of all the instances of unwelcome behaviour by the complainant towards the 21 women identified as victims of his conduct, and their names were given in almost all cases. The complainant was therefore plainly apprised of the content of all the testimony taken during the investigation and of the e-mails which he had not been allowed to see. Furthermore, although, as stated above, the identity of the witnesses was not revealed to him, it is obvious that most of the information recorded in the report could only have come from the 21 persons concerned themselves. The complainant was therefore given a real opportunity to dispute the various items of evidence gathered in the course of proceedings against him. Moreover, it is clear from the above-mentioned comments which he submitted to the Organization on 18 November 2011 to rebut the charges of which he had been notified, that he had in fact been able to prepare them without any particular difficulty. Indeed, he himself described these comments as “clarifications and objections to the accusations of sexual harassment against [him], based on the whole file, and in particular on the IOS investigation report”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3295
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; sexual harassment; witness;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3639

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3629

  
  121st Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who questioned the authority of the person who issued a warning letter in the context of her performance evaluation, alleges workplace harassment and attacks on her dignity.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; respect for dignity; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3625

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges inter alia the decision to reject her allegations of harassment without conducting an investigation.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3624

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant disputes the non-conversion of her short-term appointment into a fixed-term contract and the fact that her allegations of harassment were not investigated.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3617

  
  121st Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision requiring her to undergo a medical examination during the investigation of her complaint of harassment and the dismissal of that complaint.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation; medical examination;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  In Judgment 2552, under 3, the Tribunal pointed out that when an accusation of harassment is made, an international organisation must both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused. The organisation’s 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 (see Judgment 2524), 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 Judgments 1376, under 19, 2642, under 8 and 3085, under 26).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552, 2642, 3085
  

  Keywords:

  due process; harassment; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3608

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the final administrative decision of the Director General by which he dismissed her internal appeal against the decision not to pay her moral damages for harassment and for injury to her dignity and reputation.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; host state;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "Insofar as the complainant alleges a failure by the IAEA to investigate, it must be accepted that international organisations have a clear duty to investigate claims of harassment. The Tribunal has repeatedly said that this needs to be done and it is important that it be done (see, for example, Judgments 3413, under 10, 3365, under 26, 2910, under 13, 2973, under 16, and 2642, under 8). If there is a procedure for investigating claims of harassment in the applicable Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or guidelines, it should be followed.
  In the complainant’s memorandum [...] claiming damages, she set out the conduct which justified the claim. She used the word “harassment” twice. On the first occasion she said “the staff members who were dealing with this matter inside the IAEA treated me in a manner which can only be interpreted as a tacit presumption of guilt and which at times verged on harassment”. To say that conduct at times verged on harassment does not involve a clear allegation of harassment and could not reasonably, in this case, be viewed as a claim of harassment which required investigation. Rather, it was, in a sense, an acceptance by the complainant that although the conduct of the staff members was, in her opinion, reprehensible it did not constitute harassment.
  A staff member claiming harassment need not articulate the claim with the clarity or precision that might be expected of a lawyer drafting pleas. Any claim reasonably understood as raising an allegation of harassment must be investigated. However, that is not the position in this matter.
  While the second reference to harassment in the memorandum was more direct, it almost certainly was a reference to the conduct of the Austrian authorities and not the officials of the IAEA. Accordingly, the IAEA has not breached its duty towards the complainant by failing to investigate an allegation of harassment."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642, 2910, 2973, 3365, 3413
  

  Keywords:

  harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3599

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of the ICC, impugns the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his complaint of harassment and discrimination.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3597

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3593

  
  121st Session, 2016
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the Director-General’s decision to reject his complaint of harassment and retaliation.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal has consistently stated, as in Judgment 2295, under 10, for example, that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; judicial review;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >