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

Conduct (492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Conduct
Total judgments found: 116

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

  • Judgment 4400


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    [I]t should be recalled that, while international organisations cannot intrude on the private lives of their staff members, those staff members must nonetheless comply with the requirements inherent in their status as international civil servants, including in their personal conduct. This principle is, for example, laid down in paragraph 42 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, which expressly states that “[i]nternational civil servants must [...] bear in mind that their conduct and activities outside the workplace, even if unrelated to official duties, can compromise the image and the interests of the organizations”. In the case of ILO officials, this principle also applies, in particular, pursuant to article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations, which states that “[o]fficials shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants” and “[t]hey shall avoid any action [...] which may adversely reflect on their status”.
    Furthermore, the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law that some private conduct may, on this account, legitimately lead to disciplinary action (see, for example, Judgments 1584, consideration 9, 2944, considerations 44 to 49, or 3602, consideration 13).
    Moreover, it should be observed that, insofar as the acts of which the complainant was accused in this case constituted a criminal offence, they cannot be regarded, by definition, as being purely private in nature.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1584, 2944, 3602

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary procedure; private life;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    Paragraph 44 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, which concerns officials’ “[p]ersonal conduct” and provides that “acts that are generally recognized as offences by national criminal laws will normally also be considered violations of the standards of conduct for the international civil service”, previously states that “[a] conviction by a national court will usually, although not always, be persuasive evidence of the act for which an international civil servant was prosecuted”.
    The complainant argues that the principle set out in the second phrase concerning the probative value of convictions by national courts applies, in the words of that phrase, only “generally” and “not always”, and submits that, in the present case, the ILO was in a situation where it should have invoked that exception rather than accepting the offences of which he was accused as proven. However, it is well known that this restriction, placed on the principle in question when the Rules were adopted, was solely intended by the drafters to reserve the case of convictions in States where the courts do not offer the requisite safeguards of independence and procedural fairness. Since there is no doubt that the French legal system fulfils that requirement, the Organization – whose role plainly is not to assess whether a conviction by a national court is justified and which does not have the means to investigate conduct such as that in question in the present case by itself – rightly relied on the judgment of the Tribunal correctionnel and considered that the offences of which he had been accused had been proven.

    Keywords:

    conduct; criminal sanction; disciplinary procedure; domestic law; evidence;



  • Judgment 4089


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]t was open to the Director General to view the complainant’s conduct giving rise to and the subsequent conduct in relation to the judgment debt as falling short of the standards demanded of international civil servants. Accordingly, and subject to the various legal arguments of the complainant, it was open to the Director General to conclude it was not in the interests of the Agency to extend the complainant’s appointment beyond the mandatory retirement age.

    Keywords:

    age limit; conduct; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; organisation's interest; retirement; staff member's duties;



  • 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 Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    The proper exercise by a staff member of her or his right to bring a complaint to the Tribunal should not be held against her or him or found criticism of her or his conduct.

    Keywords:

    conduct;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    To contest the complainant’s assertion of being a “competent and loyal” staff member, the UPU improperly cites the fact that the complainant had filed two previous complaints with the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that staff members have the right to bring complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of their appointment and of the provisions of the Service Regulations, in accordance with the provisions of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal. International organisations shall not hold the proper exercising of that right against the staff member.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute

    Keywords:

    conduct; right of appeal;



  • Judgment 3233


    115th Session, 2013
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contends that she was the victim of discrimination and harassment.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "An unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgment 2861, under 37). The question as to whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see Judgment 2553, under 6). There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of the acts in question intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), and the Tribunal’s case law has always required that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgment 2100, under 13)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2553, 2861

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; conduct; definition; flaw; harassment; official;



  • Judgment 3166


    114th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 3083


    112th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[T]he Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service provide that international civil servants "should avoid assisting private bodies or persons in their dealings with their organization where this might lead to actual or perceived preferential treatment" and they "should [...] voluntarily disclose in advance possible conflicts of interest that arise in the course of carrying out their duties". The complainant argues that "should" is aspirational in nature and not mandatory. This argument must be rejected."

    Keywords:

    conduct; international civil service principles; official; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3038


    111th Session, 2011
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
    "The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."

    Keywords:

    compensation; conduct; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2944


    109th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 48

    Extract:

    "[B]reaches of private financial obligations on the part of international civil servants are incompatible with the rules of conduct by which they must abide (see, for example Judgments 53, under 7, 1480, under 3, or 1584, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 1480, 1584

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; debt; misconduct; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2773


    106th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    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:

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



  • Judgment 2752


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal exercises only a limited power of review in the case of warnings or reprimands which are not of a disciplinary nature. As pointed out in Judgments 274 and 403:
    'The Tribunal will not interfere unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts.'
    In Judgment 274 it was also explained that '[a] warning or reprimand must be based on unsatisfactory conduct since what it is saying in effect is that if the conduct is repeated a disciplinary measure may be taken'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 403

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; censure; condition; conduct; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw; reprimand; unsatisfactory service; warning;



  • Judgment 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A] claim may be made and pursued against an organisation if its conduct in proceedings before an internal appeals body or this Tribunal constitutes an abuse of process or a perversion of the right of reply."

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; conduct; iloat; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; right;



  • Judgment 2745


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 2524 that, although harassment and mobbing do not require bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent, 'behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question'. Thus, it was said in Judgment 2370 that conduct that 'had a valid managerial purpose or was the result of honest mistake, or even mere inefficiency' would not constitute harassment. However and as pointed out in Judgment 2524, 'an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken'."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524

    Keywords:

    bias; condition; conduct; consequence; definition; evidence; good faith; grounds; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of fact; organisation's duties; proportionality; qualifications; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2724


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Reports Board, which is set up by the Director-General and establishes its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations, cannot be regarded as either an internal appeals body or a judicial body. Where an official has had the opportunity to state his or her point of view before the Board and to comment on the relevant supervisors' assessments of his or her performance and conduct, the adversarial principle can reasonably be deemed to have been observed."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations of the ILO

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; conduct; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2719


    105th Session, 2008
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."

    Keywords:

    censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;



  • Judgment 2656


    103rd Session, 2007
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2601


    102nd Session, 2007
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    "It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
    [...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2553


    101st Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5-6

    Extract:

    Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
    "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
    "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
    In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2515


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".

    Keywords:

    conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top