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

Due process (187,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Due process
Total judgments found: 170

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

  • Judgment 4412


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The FAOís failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the selection report, which it disclosed to the Appeals Committee, violated the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, impeded her right of appeal and inhibited her ability to fully argue her case before the Appeals Committee in full knowledge of all facts of the case. It thereby tainted the internal appeal procedure, rather than the selection process as the complainant seems to suggest. This procedural irregularity is therefore not a basis for cancelling the selection process as the complainant requests. However, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it rejected the Appeals Committeeís recommendation to immediately disclose a redacted copy of the selection report to the complainant and to award her adequate moral damages for the breach of procedural fairness (due process).

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; due process; moral injury; selection procedure;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal relevantly restated in Judgment 3586, consideration 16, that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him, and that, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. Such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers. Additionally, the Tribunal reiterated, in consideration 17 of that judgment, its consistent case law that the principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties in a case are provided with all the materials an adjudicating body uses in an internal appeal and that the failure to do so constitutes a breach of due process.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; due process; evidence; motivation;



  • Judgment 4406


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of reduction in grade.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that, as the complainant was provided with unredacted copies of the three requested documents before lodging his appeal with the GBA against the imposition of the disciplinary measure, he was able to rely on this material during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that his right to be heard and his right to due process were not violated.

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; investigation;



  • Judgment 4398


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her claim for a second payment of the lump sum paid in the event of death or permanent invalidity under Article 84(1)b) of the Service Regulations.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It is noteworthy that in Judgment 2893, consideration 5, in reply to a complainantís submissions that the internal appeal body did not afford him due process as he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, thereby denying him the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard, the Tribunal stated that neither the legal provisions governing that internal appeal body nor the general principles applicable to it require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. The Tribunal also noted that, as the internal appeal body considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the partiesí written submissions and documentary evidence, the internal appeal body was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect. Additionally, the Tribunal notes that in the present case the Appeals Committee invited the complainant to present written submissions and she did. The complainant presents no ground that puts into question the impartiality of the members of the Appeals Committee or the lawfulness of the summary procedure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2893

    Keywords:

    due process; internal appeal;



  • Judgment 4378


    131st Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    The complainantís reliance on Judgments 3264 and 3137 is misplaced. It is recalled that in the present complaint the complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint against IOS. In the harassment complaint, the complainant identified actions taken by IOS in its investigation of allegations of misconduct made against him that he claimed amounted to harassment and abuse of power. Thus, in submitting the harassment complaint, the complainant was the reporter of possible misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment and a witness. Given that the complainant, in this case, was not the subject of the investigation process and, therefore, was not in an adversarial situation, as contemplated in Judgments 3264 and 3137, the principle of due process and the right to be heard are not applicable in these circumstances. Accordingly, the complainantís submission that his right to be heard was violated is unfounded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3137, 3264

    Keywords:

    due process; harassment; investigation; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4343


    131st Session, 2021
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.

    Considerations 13-14

    Extract:

    The Tribunalís case law accepts that there may be situations in which an organization can refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process. An example is provided by Judgment 3640, where the issue of the need to reconcile the requirements of due process with the confidentiality of harassment investigations was dealt with in considerations 17 to 22. In that judgment, the Tribunal recalled its case law according to which ďa staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against himĒ and, ďunder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers)Ē. In consideration 20, the Tribunal observed that, ďas is expressly indicated by the use of the terms Ďas a general ruleí and Ďunder normal circumstancesí [...], the case law in question does allow some exceptions to the principle which it establishesĒ. The Tribunal held that:
    ď[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).Ē
    It is therefore necessary to consider whether the evidence in the present case shows that the complainant was sufficiently informed of the content of the witness statements, even though they were not shared with him, as there would have been ďa serious breach of due processĒ if he had not been so informed (see Judgment 3137, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3137, 3295, 3640

    Keywords:

    confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; witness;



  • Judgment 4313


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.

    Considerations 5-7

    Extract:

    [T]he fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the witness statements during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw in the investigation procedure. While the Tribunalís case law recognises that, in some cases, the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 2767, cited by the ILO, and Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not so where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, 3831, under 16, 17 and 29, and 3995, under 5). [...]
    The ILO also refers to Judgment 3071, in which the Tribunal held that the failure to disclose witness statements gathered in the course of a harassment investigation could have been corrected in the proceedings before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. The Organization points out that the new procedure for the administrative resolution of harassment grievances does not allow internal appeals to be filed with the Joint Advisory Appeals Board when an investigation is required and seeks to argue that it may therefore rectify the investigatorsí omission during the proceedings before the Tribunal.
    The Tribunal cannot accept that reasoning. As discussed in consideration 3 [...], one of the advantages of the internal appeal procedure is that it allows the organisation to rectify certain irregularities in time. This is why, in Judgment 3071, the Tribunal stated that the witness statements gathered in the course of the investigation could have been disclosed to the person concerned during the proceedings before the Joint Advisory Appeals Board. In that case, the evidence was disclosed before the final decision was taken and thus the adversarial principle was observed. The fact that such proceedings are not available means that it is no longer possible to remedy the flaw arising from the late disclosure of witness statements since they constitute crucial evidence on which the impugned decision rests and, by definition, proceedings before the Tribunal take place only a posteriori.
    It should be borne in mind that, in the two judgments referred to by the Organization, the Tribunal emphasised that a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all material evidence that is likely to have a bearing on the outcome of her or his claims (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a)) and that failure to disclose that evidence constitutes a serious breach of the requirements of due process (see Judgment 3071, under 37). Those two judgments are fully consistent with the Tribunalís settled case law according to which, in the context of an investigation into allegations of harassment, 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, under 8, 3617, under 12, 4108, under 4, 4109, under 4, 4110, under 4, and 4111, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315, 2767, 3065, 3071, 3117, 3490, 3617, 3831, 3995, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111

    Keywords:

    due process; harassment; investigation report; witness;



  • Judgment 4241


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    Although the complainant did not provide a list of witnesses in her harassment complaint, she stated therein that she had named witnesses throughout that complaint wherever relevant. She identified about twenty-four persons with reference to various allegations of harassment which she proffered. Initially, between October and November 2016, the IOS interviewed seven of those persons and then transmitted a summary of their testimony to the complainant in December 2016 for her comment. In her response, dated 13 January 2017, the complainant noted that the IOS had not interviewed her or other witnesses whom she had identified. In March 2017, the IOS called five other witnesses. It called the complainant for oral testimony in May 2017. The IOS did not call some of the persons whom the complainant had identified concerning specific allegations, the UNAIDS Chief of Staff and the UNAIDS Executive Director in particular. This was in breach of proper procedure, particularly given that the IOS has not explained why it did not hear those persons (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3).
    There was also a breach of proper procedure when, notwithstanding the clear discrepancies between critical aspects of the evidence given by the complainant and the three persons whom she accused of harassment (some of which the complainant had detailed in her response of January 2017 and later in her oral testimony), the IOS did not call those persons again to clear the discrepancies (as contemplated by Article 24 of the Investigation Process) in order to determine the truth and properly establish the facts. Moreover, the IOS erred when contrary to the indication contained in paragraph 3.1.5 of the Policy, that harassment is normally prolonged and persistent, as well as the settled principle that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of an allegation of harassment, the IOS rejected each allegation of harassment separately without considering whether cumulatively they provided proof of harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111

    Keywords:

    due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; witness;



  • Judgment 4231


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainantís further plea that his right to due process was breached because the Appeals Committee did not hold a hearing in which witnesses were called also fails. According to Staff Rule 331.3.62, it is within the discretion of the Appeals Committee to determine whether hearings are necessary so it was under no obligation to call the witnesses whom the complainant wished it to hear (see, for example, Judgment 3846, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3846

    Keywords:

    due process; internal procedure; oral proceedings;



  • Judgment 4228


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for compensation for loss of earnings allegedly caused by a service-incurred injury.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    With regard to the failure to disclose the internal documentation, the Tribunal finds that the complainant was informed of the ACCCís recommendation in the letter dated 2 December 2014 in which the Director-Generalís decision to reject his claim was communicated to him. There was no breach of any due process rights as the complainant was informed of the substance of the ACCCís recommendation, as well as the Director-Generalís final decision. The complainant was provided with sufficient elements to understand the reasoning for rejecting his claim and to exercise his right of appeal.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to substantiate decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4227


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The second procedural ground raised by the complainant involves a contention that he was not provided with all evidence collected by OIGI in order to enable him to mount his defence. The defendant organizationís response in its reply is twofold. Insofar as the complainantís grievance was that some of the documents (transcripts of interviews) he was given were redacted, the redacted information related to another investigation and was not at all relied upon in consideration of the charges against the complainant. In the circumstances of this case, there is no basis for the Tribunal to doubt this is correct. The second element of the response is that, to the extent that the complainant points to the fact that he was not given 11 transcripts of interviews until after the disciplinary measure of dismissal was imposed, the defendant organization says they were not relevant to the decision to dismiss him. The complainant had all relevant transcripts when pursuing his appeal to the WFP Executive Director and the FAO Appeals Committee and he did not then demonstrate, nor has he in these proceedings before the Tribunal, that those 11 transcripts were or even may have been relevant to the decision to dismiss him. Accordingly, this ground should be rejected.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; inquiry; investigation;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant argues in his brief that ďthe duration of the investigation process went far beyond a reasonable time to guarantee due processĒ. In its reply the defendant organization makes the point that the complainant does not specify how the duration of the investigation allegedly impacted upon his due process rights. The complainant does not, in his rejoinder, provide those particulars. It is by no means obvious that the time taken, which was lengthy, affected the complainantís capacity to defend the charges or otherwise prejudiced his position. This contention should be rejected.

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; due process; injury; inquiry; investigation;



  • Judgment 4221


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks damages on the ground that her right to a fair trial and to professional legal help during the desk audit or before the Appeals Board was breached. This claim is unfounded. There is no regulatory provision or statement in the case law that makes it mandatory that a staff member be represented by counsel either during the conduct of a desk audit or in the internal appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 995, consideration 5, 1763, consideration 10, 1817, consideration 8, and 2660, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 995, 1763, 1817, 2660

    Keywords:

    desk audit; due process; internal appeals body; legal assistance;



  • Judgment 4185


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the fact that he was not heard by the Reports Committee vitiates the impugned decision. The Tribunal notes, however, that according to its own rules of procedure, the Reports Committee is under no obligation to conduct hearings. In any event, the complainant submitted full written documentation regarding the review of his performance appraisal report. In its recommendations to the Director of the Centre, the Reports Committee noted that the complainant was invited to be interviewed, but as he was absent on leave it then asked that he submit his observations in writing. The complainant requested a later deadline for submission, but then did not submit anything within the extended deadline. This, in the Tribunalís view, satisfied the requirement for due process.

    Keywords:

    due process; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4115


    127th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the appraisal period concluded. In Judgment 3224 the Tribunal said at consideration 7 that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff memberís unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. The decision to commence disciplinary proceedings can, for the purposes of the application of this principle, be characterised as an adverse decision. Even if the EPO believed that nothing was going to change, in terms of the complainantís conduct, between the time the disciplinary proceedings were commenced and the conclusion of the appraisal period a little over a month later, it was nonetheless obliged to complete the assessment of the complainantís performance in accordance with Circular No. 366 before initiating the disciplinary proceedings.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance evaluation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • 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 Tribunalís 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 complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; 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 Tribunalís 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; investigation; 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 complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; 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 complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; 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 Tribunalís 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 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 complainantís allegations constitutes a breach of due process.

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; testimony;

    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 Tribunalís 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; investigation; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4106


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to apply to him the sanction of discharge.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he requirement spelled out in the Tribunalís case law that ďan investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge madeĒ (see Judgments 2475, under 7, 2771, under 15, 3200, under 10, 3315, under 6, 3682, under 13, 3872, under 6, and 3875, under 3) was respected in the present case. At the outset, it is observed that there is no obligation to inform a staff member that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken (see Judgment 2605, under 11). The evidence shows that the complainant was informed at the outset of the investigation interview that the interview related to allegations of misconduct and that he was given the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented, respond to the allegations, and to provide any evidence or name any witnesses to support his responses. He was also given the opportunity to submit any further evidence or information in his defence prior to the conclusion of the investigation. There is no principle in the Tribunalís case law which supports the complainantís claim that he should have received detailed information about the allegations prior to the investigation interview.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2605, 2771, 3200, 3315, 3682, 3872, 3875

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; right to reply;



  • Judgment 4077


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunalís order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    [T]he [organization] could not refer to the complainantís alleged misconduct as a reason not to reinstate him as no disciplinary proceeding has occurred in that regard, so misconduct has never been proven. It is all the more grave when considering that the alleged reason for the abolition of the posts was because of financial constraints. The abolition of a post can never be based on a staff memberís conduct, as that would constitute a hidden sanction. The [organization]ís presentation before the Council of Administration constituted a breach of the duty of care and of the adversarial principle, as the complainant was not given any opportunity to defend himself and his reputation from the allegations. The UPU must respect the dignity of its staff and preserve their reputation.

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; due process; duty of care; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; reinstatement;



  • Judgment 4064


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a request made by the Administration of the FAO that he provide comments, while he was on certified sick leave, on a report issued by the Investigation Panel appointed to investigate allegations of harassment against him.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sick leave;

    Considerations 8-9

    Extract:

    Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, there is nothing in the FAO rules regime and no proven practice which provide guidance on how the requirement of Part II(b)(iv)(g) of the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment is to be fulfilled where a staff member who is accused of harassment is on certified sick leave. Given the FAOís duty under the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment to investigate harassment complaints, it is reasonable that it could ask a staff member who is on sick leave to comment upon an IP report if doing so would not exacerbate the illness which occasioned the grant of sick leave and if she or he is fit to do so.
    [...] In the Tribunalís view, the FAO took reasonable steps to discharge its duty to accord due process to the complainant, as well as its duty of care and its duty to be fair to him, while it sought to discharge its duty to implement its Policy on the Prevention of Harassment.

    Keywords:

    due process; duty of care; harassment; health reasons; inquiry; investigation; medical fitness; sick leave;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 26.11.2021 ^ top