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 procedure (509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary procedure
Total judgments found: 102

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

  • 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 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 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; motivation;

    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 4361


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;



  • 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.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Because the Prosecutor rejected the findings and recommendations of the Board, she was obliged to motivate her conclusion and address not only the relevant inculpatory evidence pointing to guilt but also the relevant exculpatory evidence pointing to innocence, including the alibi evidence. She failed to do so [...].

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4359


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;



  • 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 Tribunal’s 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 “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under 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)”. In consideration 20, the Tribunal observed that, “as is expressly indicated by the use of the terms ‘as a general rule’ and ‘under normal circumstances’ [...], the case law in question does allow some exceptions to the principle which it establishes”. The Tribunal held that:
    “[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).”
    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 “a serious breach of due process” 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 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 9

    Extract:

    It is not disputed that the above rules were not complied with. On this issue the ILO submits that the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, and in particular paragraph 13, reflect a practice that has gradually become superfluous following the establishment of the IAO, which is the only unit authorised to conduct investigations. Given that an official under investigation is heard by the IAO and notified of the procedure, she or he is fully informed of the content of the case file forwarded to the Committee, which hence no longer needs to provide it to the official concerned. The Rules of Procedure were being revised and would be published shortly on the Committee’s website.
    However, the Tribunal observes that, so long as the rules are neither amended nor repealed, the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti requires the Organization to apply them (see Judgment 3883, under 20). That principle is particularly applicable in disciplinary matters (see Judgment 3123, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3123, 3883

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; patere legem; practice;



  • 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.

    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 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;

    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 organization’s response in its reply is twofold. Insofar as the complainant’s 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;



  • Judgment 4207


    129th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    A claim of harassment and a report of misconduct based on an allegation of harassment are distinct and separate matters. A claim of harassment is a claim addressed to the organization the resolution of which only involves two parties, the organization and the reporter of the harassment. In contrast, a report of alleged misconduct, based on an allegation of harassment, triggers the Appendix G procedures, a process that is directed at the culpability of the staff member in question and potentially the imposition of a disciplinary measure. In this process, the two parties are the organization and the staff member in question. In this process, the reporter of the misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment, is a witness and not a party in the proceedings.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; harassment; misconduct; sexual harassment;



  • 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 member’s 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 complainant’s 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 complainant’s 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 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 Tribunal’s case law that “an 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 made” (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 Tribunal’s case law which supports the complainant’s 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; duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; right to reply;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3872, under 2, “[c]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3757, under 6)”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3757, 3872

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;



  • Judgment 4091


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
    “[...] that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
    (See also Judgments 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;



  • Judgment 4080


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal is simply astonished that the complainant was invited to sign two proposals for a settlement requiring him to pay sums of money in exchange for the Organisation waiving disciplinary action against him and providing him with protection against any possible criminal action. Such a conduct is inadmissible.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 4076


    127th Session, 2019
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The UPU filed and application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3927 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application filed by the organisation; application for execution; application for interpretation; application for review; complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension of the execution of a judgment;



  • Judgment 4065


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In his second complaint, the complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him, while he was on sick leave, for misconduct. In his third complaint, he challenges the dismissal decision on the merits.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Inasmuch as the complainant challenges a disciplinary decision, it is recalled that consistent precedent has it that such decisions are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw. Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 3872, under 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3872

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; discretion; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; procedural flaw;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Disciplinary Committee found no misconduct and recommended no sanction. In the decision of [...], the Secretary General failed to explain why the Disciplinary Committee’s analysis and conclusions on both the question of guilt and the question of sanction were wrong (see Judgment 3969, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 4050


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The claims of breach of due process are unfounded.
    [...]
    (b) The complainant claims that he should have had 15 days to respond to the new allegation of misconduct regarding the charge of breach of confidentiality, as it was not included in the Article 100 report. In a similar situation the Tribunal concluded as follows: “The Tribunal notes that the Disciplinary Committee addressed this issue explicitly in the proceedings and in its final report. The Disciplinary Committee has the prerogative to immediately address something which occurs during the proceedings, in the interest of procedural efficiency. As the complainant was given the opportunity to comment on the alleged breach of confidentiality, the principle of due process was respected. The complainant had adequate time to prepare his defence.” (See Judgment 3971, under 15.) These conclusions are applicable to the present case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3971

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; due process;

    Considerations 22-23

    Extract:

    The complainant claims that his actions did not cause any identifiable prejudice. The Tribunal observes that the complainant obstructed the proper functioning of the system of internal remedies by his unjustified absence from the July session, his undermining of the Chairperson’s authority to take organizational decisions and his refusal to finalize the cases assigned to him which had been pending prior to the July session before leaving the IAC. The complainant does not acknowledge the negative impact of his uncooperative behaviour on the functioning of the IAC, which consequently adversely affected the interests of the other members of the IAC.
    [...] The Tribunal finds that in [his] decisions [...] the President properly motivated his reasoning for deviating from the Disciplinary Committee’s recommendation of the sanction of relegation in step by one step. Furthermore, the [...] mitigating factors identified by the complainant are unconvincing. [T]he provisions were lawful, his absence was unjustified, his behaviour was intentional, and furthermore, his willingness to attend the September session was conditional. Taken as a whole, the complainant’s behaviour constituted misconduct, which was aggravated by the fact that he was an IAC member who would be expected to have a high level of respect for the rules, for confidentiality, and for the proper functioning of the appeal system. [T]he President maintained the sanction proposed by the Disciplinary Committee (relegation in step), but after considering the severity of the misconduct, he concluded that relegation by three steps was justified. The Tribunal considers the contested sanction not to be disproportionate in light of the above considerations.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; proportionality;



  • Judgment 4047


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her with immediate effect the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.

    Considerations 6, 9 and 13

    Extract:

    Overall, the case law of the Tribunal is clear and consistent. It was recently referred to in Judgment 3863, consideration 8 (see, also, Judgment 3882, consideration 14, as another recent example), in which the Tribunal said:
    “[A]ccording 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).”
    It is legally irrelevant, for the purposes of the Tribunal’s judicial determination of the complaint, that, as the EPO points out in the reply, the same formulation is used in the English common law to establish the standard of proof in criminal proceedings.
    [...]
    The test [in question] is to be applied by the decision-maker who has to decide whether there has been misconduct and the appropriate sanction. Usually that is the executive head of an organisation or her or his delegate. However it is also a test to be applied by bodies such as a disciplinary committee, though whether it does in any given case will ultimately depend on the role such a body has under the organisation’s rules. Under Article 102 of the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the Office, the Disciplinary Committee is obliged to deliver a reasoned opinion on thedisciplinary measure appropriate to the facts complained of and transmit the opinion to, in this case, the President. This could only be done if the Disciplinary Committee concluded that the staff member had, on the facts, engaged in misconduct warranting a disciplinary measure. Plainly enough, the Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the misconduct occurred. There would be no utility in the Disciplinary Committee applying some other standard before reporting to the President.[...]
    In some circumstances, it may be that if one of a number of sets of charges was assessed applying the appropriate standard of proof and a conclusion of guilt reached, the imposition of a particular disciplinary sanction might be justified by reference to the proof of that set of charges beyond a reasonable doubt notwithstanding the failure to apply the appropriate standard in relation to the other sets of charges. [...]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3649, 3863, 3882

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary procedure; standard of proof;

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


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top