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

Judgment No. 2773

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Consideration 9

Extract:

"While internal investigative reports cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action against a staff member, they may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if they yield indications of irregularities justifying this (see, in this respect, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When the organisation concerned initiates proceedings in the light of such reports, it is not itself obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in these documents, but must simply ensure that the person in question is given the opportunity to reply to the findings they contain so as to respect the rights of defence."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365

Keywords

evidence; inquiry; adversarial proceedings; right to reply; disciplinary procedure; investigation; investigation report; disciplinary charges

Consideration 12

Extract:

"Nor has the Tribunal found any evidence on file to suggest that the Organization displayed prejudice against the complainant. The circumstance which the complainant cites in support of this contention, namely that he was suspended from his duties on the basis of Staff Rules, cannot be construed in that way, because such a suspension is only an interim, precautionary measure which does not at all prejudge the outcome of the proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 1927, under 5, and 2365, under 4(a))."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365

Keywords

measure of distraint; provisional measures; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; suspensive action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; suspension; bias

Consideration 18

Extract:

"The Tribunal notes that, even supposing that the complainant could be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he deliberately took part in the misappropriation of funds, the setting up at his behest of an unsupervised funding system which clearly made such misappropriation possible was in itself an act sufficiently imprudent for it to constitute a serious disciplinary offence."

Keywords

serious misconduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; official

Consideration 25

Extract:

"The Tribunal also notes that the fact - which greatly surprises the complainant - that the UN did not consider it necessary to initiate proceedings against the other staff members whose conduct was criticised by the OIOS has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to the complainant in respect of the acts of which he is personally accused, since they are proven and imputable to him (see for example Judgments 207, 1271, 1977 or 2555)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555

Keywords

equal treatment; misconduct; staff member's duties; conduct; disciplinary measure; official

Consideration 28

Extract:

[T]he Tribunal points out that according to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207 and 1984, the disciplinary authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction justified by a staff memberís misconduct, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984

Keywords

proportionality; disciplinary measure; discretion

Consideration 28

Extract:

[W]ith regard to the issue of whether the measure of dismissal duly reflects the seriousness of the offences committed, the Tribunal points out that according to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207 and 1984, the disciplinary authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction justified by a staff memberís misconduct, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected. In view of the serious nature of the above-mentioned acts, and although the complainant had always been complimented on his professional abilities throughout his career, the Director-General of the FAO clearly did not exceed his discretionary authority in deciding to dismiss the complainant. The principle of proportionality has not therefore been breached.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984

Keywords

proportionality; termination of employment; disciplinary measure; discretion



 
Last updated: 28.09.2020 ^ top