Judgment No. 3996
Decision
The complaints are dismissed, as are the Commission’s counterclaims for costs.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
transfer; extension of contract; harassment; complaint dismissed
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant has filed four complaints against four decisions of the Executive Secretary. As the facts leading to the four complaints overlap, it is convenient to deal with them in one judgment and to join the four complaints as the parties have requested [...].
Keywords
joinder
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant applies for oral hearings [...]. As the written submissions are sufficient to make a reasoned decision, oral hearings are unnecessary. Thus, the Tribunal denies the application for oral hearings.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 4B
Extract:
[T]he complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see Judgment 3743, under 12, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3743
Keywords
burden of proof; misuse of authority; bad faith; abuse of power
Consideration 4J
Extract:
[T]he Executive Secretary’s discretionary power with respect to a transfer must necessarily yield to the objective appearance of a conflict of interest; even more, considering that the complainant herself had requested the written commitment, and that the conflict of interest cannot be superseded by a commitment or an agreement.
Keywords
transfer; discretion; conflict of interest
Consideration 7B
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal held (in Judgment 2524) that harassment and mobbing do not require any intent on the part of the actors. In that Judgment, the Tribunal stated: “Harassment and mobbing do not require any [...] intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice [...].”
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2370, 2524
Keywords
harassment
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the Commission’s counterclaims for costs, the Tribunal finds that in the circumstances, considering the complainant’s apparent perception of the facts, the complaints cannot be considered vexatious, and therefore the counterclaims for costs should be dismissed.
Keywords
counterclaim
| 
