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

Right to be heard (747,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to be heard
Total judgments found: 9

  • 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.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;

    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 complainant’s 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 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; right to be heard; testimony;

    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 complainant’s allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

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



  • 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.

    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 complainant’s allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4108


    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.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;



  • 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.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The sole purpose of an investigation is to establish the existence of facts that may be contested during disciplinary proceedings in which the rights of defence must be scrupulously safeguarded. The Tribunal considers that it is “clear that the rules relating to due process, in particular, which must be respected scrupulously during the actual disciplinary proceedings [...] (see, for example, Judgment 2475), do not apply during the investigation of matters brought before an internal auditing body” (see Judgment 2589, under 7). The Tribunal holds that, while it is preferable to notify the person concerned that she or he is to be the subject of an investigation, except where this would be liable to compromise the outcome of the investigation, such notification is not a requisite element of due process (see Judgment 3295, under 8).
    Once the investigation is opened, the organisation is under an obligation to provide the person concerned with an opportunity to explain her or his conduct and to present any information on her or his behalf. The Uniform Guidelines for Investigations do not, however, stipulate when the person concerned must be given this opportunity, since the aforementioned paragraph 17 of the Guidelines provides that this matter “is regulated by the rules, policies and procedures of the Organization”. In the International Labour Office there is no internal manual or practical guide setting out the procedure to be followed when conducting such interviews. Like the JAAB, the Tribunal considers that the above-mentioned opportunity should preferably be afforded before rather than during the interview. However, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the complainant was in any way prevented from defending himself on account of the manner in which the investigation was conducted (see, in this connection, Judgment 2771, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2589, 2771, 3295

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; inquiry; right to be heard;



  • 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.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The sole purpose of an investigation is to establish the existence of facts that may be contested during disciplinary proceedings in which the rights of defence must be scrupulously safeguarded. The Tribunal considers that it is “clear that the rules relating to due process, in particular, which must be respected scrupulously during the actual disciplinary proceedings [...] (see, for example, Judgment 2475), do not apply during the investigation of matters brought before an internal auditing body” (see Judgment 2589, under 7). The Tribunal holds that, while it is preferable to notify the person concerned that she or he is to be the subject of an investigation, except where this would be liable to compromise the outcome of the investigation, such notification is not a requisite element of due process (see Judgment 3295, under 8).
    Once the investigation is opened, the organisation is under an obligation to provide the person concerned with an opportunity to explain her or his conduct and to present any information on her or his behalf. The Uniform Guidelines for Investigations do not, however, stipulate when the person concerned must be given this opportunity, since the aforementioned paragraph 17 of the Guidelines provides that this matter “is regulated by the rules, policies and procedures of the Organization”. In the International Labour Office there is no internal manual or practical guide setting out the procedure to be followed when conducting such interviews. Like the JAAB, the Tribunal considers that the above-mentioned opportunity should preferably be afforded before rather than during the interview. However, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the complainant was in any way prevented from defending himself on account of the manner in which the investigation was conducted (see, in this connection, Judgment 2771, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2589, 2771, 3295

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; inquiry; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4037


    126th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    A steady line of precedent has it that a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract must be notified to the official concerned in good time, particularly so that she or he may exercise her or his right to appeal against it (in this connection, see Judgments 2104, under 6, 2531, under 9, and 3362, under 16).
    However, this case law does not require that the official be given an opportunity to submit comments before that decision is taken.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2531, 3362

    Keywords:

    fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 3139


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The complainant has no grounds to regard the refusal to renew her contract as a disguised disciplinary measure imposed in retaliation for the internal appeals against her suspension [...].
    Moreover, the decision of 31 March 2010 cannot be regarded as a dismissal decision; it was simply a decision not to renew a contract which was due to expire because, at that date, no request for review having been submitted within the prescribed time limit, the decision of 17 November 2009 extending the complainant’s appointment for five months had become final (see Judgment 3140, also delivered this day).
    Although the decision of 31 March 2010 was therefore neither a disciplinary measure nor a dismissal, the complainant’s right to be heard had to be respected nonetheless.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140

    Keywords:

    hidden disciplinary measure; non-renewal of contract; right to be heard; termination;



  • Judgment 3138


    113th Session, 2012
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Suspension is an interim precautionary measure which, in principle, must be adopted urgently, and this will often make it impossible to invite the person concerned to express their opinion beforehand. However, this person’s right to be heard must be exercised before the substantive decision is taken to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgment 2365, under 4(a)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635

    Keywords:

    due process; right to be heard; suspension;


 
Last updated: 22.07.2019 ^ top