Judgment No. 4085

• Organization: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
• Date: 06.02.2019
• Original: English
• Judges: Barbagallo, Hansen, Rawlins
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

harassment; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1

Extract:

The complainant applies for oral hearings, pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Rules. The application will be dismissed in view of the ample submissions and documentary evidence provided by the parties, which fully inform the Tribunal about this complaint.

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Rules

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 2

Extract:

The complainant’s request for the disclosure of documents is rejected because, cast in the most general and imprecise terms, it is made on the speculative basis that something will be found in those documents to further her case. It constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 2510, under 7, and 3345, under 9).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510, 3345

Keywords

disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition

Consideration 7

Extract:

It is observed that the complainant supports this complaint detailing events from 2007 to late 2014 and raising issues in a manner which violates the general principle of law that a person cannot simultaneously litigate the same issues in separate or concurrent proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 3291, under 6, and 2742, under 16).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3291

Keywords

duplication of proceedings

Consideration 7

Extract:

[S]ome of the allegations in the present complaint have also been foundational subjects of Judgments by the Tribunal and are now res judicata (see, for example, Judgment 3950, under 6 and 7).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3950

Keywords

res judicata

Consideration 16

Extract:

The complainant argues that the IAOD and the JGP erred because they did not call witnesses whom she named or whose names arose during the course of the investigation. It is however apparent that those persons did not actually witness the incidents that were complained of, and, in any event, the relevant allegations identified in consideration 14 of this judgment did not amount to harassment. They were actions taken in a tense working environment in the context of supervisory responsibility pursuant to paragraph 6 of Office Instruction No. 17/2006. The incidents cannot be a basis on which to find institutional harassment and the complainant provides no evidence of actions or inactions on the part of the Administration that would constitute institutional harassment. Moreover, the evidence which she provides does not show that there was a lack of good faith that constituted gross negligence, bias or abuse of authority, as she contends.

Keywords

institutional harassment

Consideration 11

Extract:

The matter summarized in item (4) in consideration 8 of this judgment is res judicata and will therefore not be reconsidered in this judgment as it was substantially the subject of the complainant’s first complaint to the Tribunal, which was determined in Judgment 3418.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3418

Keywords

res judicata