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

Disciplinary measure (507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 817, 908,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary measure
Total judgments found: 160

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

  • Judgment 4439


    132nd Session, 2021
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;



  • Judgment 4415


    132nd Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    In appropriate cases, the health of a staff member who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings can be a mitigating factor (see, for example, Judgments 4051 and 3602) but not always (see, for example, Judgment 1984). It was in the present case. The need for the complainant to have recourse to medicinal cannabis is certainly relevant to the first set of charges. The meaning of the emphasised words in consideration 9, above, is far from clear. But their import appears to be that the complainant would have been aware of the consequences of his actions, notwithstanding his medical condition, the pain it generated and the need to lessen or eliminate that pain. But his medically sanctioned recourse to medicinal cannabis plainly feeds into the question of the degree or extent of his culpability for attending the EPO premises under the influence of that drug and, indeed, consuming or storing that drug on those premises.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3602, 4051

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; health reasons; mitigating circumstances;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; health reasons; medical grounds; misconduct; termination of employment;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The approach taken by the President to the question of the relevance of the complainant’s health and whether there were any mitigating circumstances or factors was significantly flawed. The impugned decision rejecting the request for review of the decision to dismiss the complainant for misconduct will be set aside.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; final decision; health reasons; mitigating circumstances;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; investigation;



  • 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 29

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s case law, the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, for example, Judgments 3640, consideration 29, 3927, consideration 13, and 3944, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; criminal sanction; disciplinary measure; private life; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4373


    131st Session, 2021
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    A final decision maker can refer to other documents which, when taken together with such reasons for decision as are given by the decision maker, can constitute the reasons for decision (see, for example, Judgment 4081, consideration 5). But the Tribunal’s approach is influenced by the circumstances and the nature of the decision (see Judgment 2927, consideration 7), and the Tribunal does not recognise the aggregation of reasons from multiple sources is appropriate in relation to disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 2112, consideration 5). The Director-General did not adequately motivate his decision to censure the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned decision […] should be set aside.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2112, 2927, 4081

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4362


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

    Considerations 7-8 and 10

    Extract:

    The relevant legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion (see, for example, Judgment 3863, consideration 11). Part of the Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence (see Judgment 3863, consideration 8).
    The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
    [...]
    The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact, the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863

    Keywords:

    beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 4360


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her summary dismissal for serious misconduct.

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt does not exist to create an insuperable barrier for organisations to successfully prosecute disciplinary proceedings against staff members. Indeed it should not have that effect. What is required is discussed in many judgments of the Tribunal. Rather the standard involves the recognition that often disciplinary proceedings can have severe consequences for the affected staff member, including dismissal and potentially serious adverse consequences on the reputation of the staff member and her or his career as an international civil servant, and in these circumstances it is appropriate to require a high level of satisfaction on the part of the organisation that the disciplinary measure is justified because the misconduct has been proved. The likelihood of misconduct having occurred is insufficient and does not afford appropriate protection to international civil servants. It is fundamentally unproductive to say, critically, this standard is the “criminal” standard in some domestic legal systems and a more appropriate standard is the “civil” standard in the same systems involving the assessment of evidence and proof on the balance of probabilities. The standard of beyond reasonable doubt derived from the Tribunal’s case law as it has evolved over the decades, serves a purpose peculiar to the law of the international civil service.
    [...]
    The standard of beyond reasonable doubt concerns both the finding of specific facts and the overall level of satisfaction that the case against the staff member has been made out. In relation to the proof of any essential relevant fact the person or body charged with the task of assessing the evidence and making a decision in the context of determining disciplinary proceedings must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a particular fact exists.

    Keywords:

    beyond reasonable doubt; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; harassment; misconduct;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    [W]hereas the Director General considered that the length of the complainant’s prior satisfactory service and unblemished record could, in principle, be mitigating factors, he concluded that these factors were outweighed by other factors, including the serious incidents of harassment which were complained of. He also considered it an aggravating factor that as a senior staff member the complainant was expected to act as a role model, and that he had failed to express remorse for the incidents at any time. The Tribunal finds that based on the foregoing, the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades, imposed by the Director General in the exercise of his discretionary authority, was not disproportionate.

    Keywords:

    demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;



  • Judgment 4310


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks reinstatement at the ILO. As a rule, an official dismissed on disciplinary grounds whose dismissal is set aside is entitled to be reinstated. However, the Tribunal may refuse to make such an order if reinstatement is no longer possible or if it is inappropriate. According to the Tribunal’s case law, reinstatement is inadvisable when an employer has valid reasons for losing confidence in an employee (see, in particular, Judgments 1238, under 4, and 3364, under 27) [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1238, 3364

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; reinstatement; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4308


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3640, consideration 29, “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area.” The disciplinary measure of dismissal was not disproportionate, particularly having regard to the complainant’s alteration of the email of Ms D. This was a manifestation of dishonesty and fraud and it was open to WHO, as the disciplinary authority with a power to decide the disciplinary measure, to view the totality of the complainant’s conduct as misconduct warranting dismissal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; proportionality; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4279


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is wrong to believe there is a contradiction between the dismissal of her harassment complaint and the Director General’s decision to issue a written reprimand to Mr V. after the investigation report was submitted.
    It is true that Mr V. received a reprimand [...], even though the investigators had found that there was no need for a disciplinary sanction in this case. In view of the requirements inherent in the principle of equal treatment, the Director General considered that he should treat Mr V.’s behaviour in specifically addressing the complainant as a woman during the incident [...] as misconduct. The Director General also deemed Mr V.’s failure to account for that conduct when he was questioned about it during the meeting [...] as inappropriate, given the duties owed by the Principal Director of Resources to staff unions.
    Needless to say, it is not for the Tribunal to rule on whether the sanction imposed on Mr V. was warranted, since it has not been impugned before it. However, the Tribunal observes that, in any event, the misconduct of which Mr V. is accused [...] cannot be regarded as constituting psychological harassment of the complainant. There is therefore no contradiction between the imposition of that sanction and the rejection of the internal complaint [...] seeking recognition of such harassment.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; harassment;



  • Judgment 4247


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As to the complainant’s submissions concerning the proportionality of the decision to dismiss her, it must first be recalled, as stated in Judgment 3953, consideration 14, that:
    “[A]ccording to a long line of precedent the decision-making authority has discretion in determining the severity of a sanction to be applied to a staff member whose misconduct has been established. However, as stated in Judgment 3640, under 29 and 31, that discretion must be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3953

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; proportionality;

    Considerations 11-12

    Extract:

    The complainant is [...] of the view that the decision is flawed because [...] WIPO failed to prove her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] In relation to the [...] point the complainant made, as stated in Judgment 3882, in consideration 14:
    “It is settled principle that the organization must prove its case against a complainant in a disciplinary matter such as this beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant argues that the [organization] did not meet that standard of proof in the present case. The Tribunal’s approach when this issue is raised was stated, for example, in consideration 14 of Judgment 3649, as follows:
    ‘At this juncture, it is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. It is equally well settled that the “‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).”
    However, at this juncture, it must also be noted that WIPO’s Staff Rule 10.1.2(d) expressly provides that the applicable standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is “clear and convincing evidence”.
    In the present case, based on a comprehensive investigation, IOD found that there was “clear and convincing evidence that [the complainant] was absent from work without a proper authorization 80 times between 1 October 2014 and 31 March 2015” and that, “[i]n each of [these] instances, [she] had misrepresented her presence at work through e-Work ‘omission to clock’ submissions”. The Tribunal has reviewed the IOD’s investigation report and the extensive evidence referenced in that report. The Tribunal agrees with IOD’s characterization of the evidence as being, at a minimum, “clear and convincing evidence” regarding the complainant’s conduct. It is clear that the facts underlying the charge of misconduct are uncontroverted. The reference by the Director General to the “clear and convincing evidence standard” does not detract from the fact that, in substance, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was met.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3882

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 4244


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to relegate her by two salary steps.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Regarding the severity of the sanction, the Tribunal’s case law has it that “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area” (see, for example, Judgments 3971, consideration 17, 3953, consideration 14, 3944, consideration 12, and 3640, consideration 29).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3953, 3971

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; proportionality;



  • Judgment 4234


    129th Session, 2020
    International Office of Epizootics
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As to the errors and omissions in the management of staff files which were referred to in the performance appraisal reports, these were professional shortcomings. Such shortcomings cannot be equated with misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, 1208, consideration 2, and 3853, consideration 6). Misconduct involves a breach of the duties of an international civil servant in respect of conduct which may trigger disciplinary proceedings and lead to a disciplinary measure. That is not the case for professional shortcomings, which may give rise to various administrative measures, such as a reminder of the applicable rules, a note in a personal file, an unfavourable appraisal or even the non-renewal or termination of a contract (see, for example, Judgment 1405, consideration 4).
    The professional shortcomings mentioned in the performance appraisal reports – the last of which led to a 95 per cent downwards adjustment in the complainant’s annual merit bonus – could not give rise to a disciplinary measure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1405, 3853

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance report;



  • 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 6

    Extract:

    The role of the Tribunal in a case such as the present, in relation to the question of whether the alleged conduct took place, was summarised in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. According to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). It is equally well settled that the “Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3862

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary measure; misconduct; standard of proof;



  • Judgment 4148


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for five working days.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; suspension;



  • Judgment 4063


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls its consistent case law according to which a staff member is entitled to an efficient internal means of redress and to expect a decision on an internal appeal to be taken within a reasonable time (see Judgment 3336, consideration 6). In this case, the complainant submitted his detailed appeal to the Appeals Board on 11 March 2015 – following the public delivery of Judgment 3398 – and the decision of the Director-General on this appeal was issued only on 2 August 2016, that is almost seventeen months later.
    Given the nature of the case, which concerns a termination for disciplinary reasons, the Tribunal considers that such a period of time was excessive and that, in this regard, moral damages should be awarded to the complainant in the amount of 1,000 euros.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336

    Keywords:

    delay in internal procedure; disciplinary measure; moral injury;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal cannot be affirmatively satisfied that the decision of the Director-General would have been the same had she only considered the charges specifically presented as such in the list of charges referred to the JDC. The termination decision, which was taken unlawfully, must therefore be set aside for this reason.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4058


    127th Session, 2019
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant is no longer working for the Organization. No order was sought by the complainant to remit the matter to the Organization to consider again whether the complainant was guilty of misconduct and, if found guilty, what sanction should be imposed in light of a finding of misconduct. Accordingly, no order remitting the matter will be made.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; material damages;



  • Judgment 4052


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to subject him to disciplinary proceedings after his separation from the EPO and to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of a reduction by one third in the amount of his retirement pension.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure;



  • Judgment 4051


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that disciplinary decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to only limited review. In Judgment 3297, consideration 8, the Tribunal stated that it will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the fact findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, consideration 3). In disciplinary matters, the burden of proof lies with the employer, which must demonstrate that the complainant did indeed engage in the conduct of which he was accused (see, for example, Judgments 3297, consideration 8, and 3875, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3872, 3875

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary measure; discretion; judicial review;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The President’s decision to request the complainant to undergo a further medical examination to determine whether his medical condition may have guided his behaviour and affected his accountability for his actions accorded with the exercise of the EPO’s duty of care towards the complainant, as was recently explained by the Tribunal in Judgment 3972.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3972

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; duty of care; illness;

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


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top