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

Judgment No. 4291

Decision

The complaint is dismissed, as is the UPU’s counterclaim for costs.

Summary

The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

harassment; complaint dismissed

Consideration 8

Extract:

In his complaint form, the complainant requested an oral hearing, identifying himself and the Director General as witnesses to be called. In his rejoinder he added the former Director General, the Director of Human Resources, and the complainant’s supervisor [...] to his list of requested witnesses. The basis for his request is an alleged “lack of clarity about the denials” by the organization regarding his allegations of harassment. As the parties have presented ample submissions and documents to permit the Tribunal to reach an informed and just decision on the case, there is no need for an oral hearing. The request for an oral hearing is, therefore, rejected.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 10

Extract:

In his claims for relief, the complainant asks the Tribunal to order a number of measures which are either unrelated to the present complaint or beyond the Tribunal’s competence, namely, that the Tribunal should order the UPU to: initiate disciplinary action against UPU officials; re-credit the complainant with previously deducted sick leave, salary, home leave and other emoluments; commence a reclassification review of the complainant’s post; revise the complainant’s job description and grade; and allow the complainant “to work permanently from home at a percentage mutually agreed upon by him and his treating physician”. Those claims will not be considered.

Keywords

competence of tribunal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings

Consideration 12

Extract:

The complainant’s submissions [...] essentially ask the Tribunal to appraise the evidence presented in the OIOS Preliminary Assessment and in the Internal Audit Investigation Report, and to rule that the Appeals Committee and the Director General have erred in their assessments of the evidence. In Judgment 3593, consideration 12, the Tribunal stated as follows:
“[I]t 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.”
(See also Judgments 4091, consideration 17, 3882, consideration 13, and 3682, consideration 8.)

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 4091

Keywords

evidence; inquiry; harassment; investigation

Consideration 14

Extract:

Essentially, the “flaws” [the complainant] has identified are that they did not agree with his perceptions. He has not submitted any evidence that the investigators “failed to obtain, refused to accept or ignored relevant evidence, took account of irrelevant evidence or misconstrued the evidence” (see Judgment 3447, under 6).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

Keywords

inquiry; witness; investigation

Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant asks for oral hearings because he finds the organization’s denials of his allegations to be insufficient. However, the burden of proof rests on him and he has not discharged it. [...] It is for the complainant to adduce evidence of his allegations, and in the absence of such evidence, all such allegations should be rejected (see Judgment 28 at paragraph 4 of Section A).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 28

Keywords

burden of proof; oral proceedings

Consideration 17

Extract:

As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139

Keywords

decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification

Consideration 19

Extract:

In Judgment 4164, addressing a similar argument, the Tribunal stated the following, at consideration 13: “The Tribunal has consistently stated that when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself.” The following was also stated in Judgment 3184, consideration 10:
“The case law has consistently provided that ‘[t]here is a duty to explain a decision or a conclusion because everyone concerned has to know the reasons for it [...] [b]ut the duty will be discharged even if the reasons are stated in some other text to which there is express or even implied reference, for example where a higher authority endorses the reasoning of a lower one or a recommendation by some advisory body’ (see in particular Judgment 1673, under 6). Consequently, the Director-General, in his final decision, was not required to provide a detailed reply to each of the objections raised by the complainant. He merely had to state reasons for adopting or rejecting the recommendation of the advisory body and the reason on which the original decision was based.”
In the present case, the Director General endorsed the Appeals Committee’s opinion, which recommended that he dismiss the appeal in its entirety, and was based on its findings (section IV of the opinion) which are concise and specific, as well as the findings of the Internal Auditor and the OIOS investigations. The Tribunal concludes that the duty to motivate the Appeals Committee’s opinion and the final decision has been fulfilled.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1673, 3184, 4164

Keywords

final decision; motivation

Consideration 20

Extract:

Considering this is a continuation of a previous judicial proceeding in which the case was remitted to the defendant for a new decision, the Tribunal does not find it appropriate to grant the UPU’s counterclaim for costs.

Keywords

counterclaim



 
Last updated: 05.11.2020 ^ top