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

Right to be heard (747,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Right to be heard
Total judgments found: 36

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4794


    137th Session, 2024
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his appraisal report for 2016.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    As for the complainant’s contention that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not offer the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee, the complainant has not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. The Tribunal recalls that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, [...] Judgment 4637, consideration 12, and Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4408, 4637

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4781


    137th Session, 2024
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 11, 4662, consideration 11, 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6). Accordingly, that official must have the opportunity, insofar as is compatible with the rules of receivability and procedure to which she or he is subject, to freely develop the arguments in support of her or his appeal.
    [...]
    A provision that gives an appeal body the ability to waive the time limits that normally apply confers on that body discretionary power to be used according to the circumstances of each case. However, in the event of a dispute on the matter, it is for the Tribunal to ensure that the appeal body has not exercised that power improperly (see, for example, Judgment 3267, considerations 3 and 4).
    In the present case, the Tribunal considers that, given the very particular situation in which the complainant found herself at the material time, the Appeal Board was indeed presented with exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the aforementioned subparagraph (d), which warranted permission being given to the complainant to finalise her appeal outside the time limit, and that the Board was therefore acting improperly in refusing to give her that opportunity, attempting to justify this position by a reference to “normal practice and procedures”, from which it should therefore have departed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 3267, 4408, 4662, 4697

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; exception; internal appeal; right to be heard; time limit;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an accusation of harassment made by an official requires an international organisation to investigate the matter ensuring that due process is observed, for the protection of both the person(s) accused and the accuser (see, for example, Judgments 3617, consideration 11, 3065, consideration 10, 2973, consideration 16, and 2552, consideration 3).
    As a result, in the event of an accusation of harassment, the adversarial principle requires, in particular, that the accuser be kept informed of the content of statements made by the person(s) accused and any testimony gathered as part of the investigation, in order to challenge them if necessary (see Judgments 4110, consideration 4, 3617, consideration 12, and 3065, considerations 7 and 8).
    In the present case, it is not apparent from the file that the complainant was informed during the course of the investigation, as is required by this case law, of the content of the observations made by the supervisors who were the subject of her complaint or the statements of the witnesses heard by the investigator. On the contrary, all the evidence appears to confirm the complainant’s assertion, which is not expressly disputed by the organisation in its submissions, that the information in question was not provided to her. In that regard, the Tribunal notes in particular that the sections of the report of 17 September 2019 that deal with the methodology of the investigation and the detailed examination of the complainant’s various allegations indicate that she was indeed heard at the start of the investigation but was not subsequently invited to comment on the reactions of her supervisors when they were questioned by the investigator, nor on the statements from the various witnesses heard by the investigator.
    It follows from these findings that the investigation in question was not conducted in compliance with the adversarial principle.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2973, 3065, 3617, 4110

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4768


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    In Judgment 4609, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that its case law “requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties [...] (see, for example, Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7)”. Similarly, in Judgment 4399, consideration 9, the Tribunal noted that “a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken” was necessary. While it is true that this case law concerned individual transfers and not a collective transfer as in the present case, the Tribunal considers that the Organisation is wrong to submit that this requirement does not apply here because there is nothing in its Staff Regulations and Rules of Application imposing such an obligation in the context of a collective transfer carried out in the interests of the service.
    Firstly, the absence of a binding provision to this effect in the applicable rules cannot permit an organisation to disregard the principles established by the Tribunal’s case law. Secondly, the fact that the transfer was collective rather than individual does not exempt the Organisation from this fundamental requirement. Although the Tribunal’s case law has it that the general principle protecting a staff member’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see, for example, Judgments 4593, consideration 7, and 4283, consideration 6), in the present case, even if the impugned decision was collective in scope, it was obviously not impersonal. The Tribunal considers that a decision which, as in this case, notifies specifically identified staff members of their new individual postings with effect from 4 July 2019 cannot be considered an impersonal decision.
    The Tribunal is not persuaded by Eurocontrol’s argument that it would not be “conceivable or even possible” for an organisation to consult individually each staff member before a collective transfer on the scale of that at issue in the present case, which affected over 600 staff members. The Organisation cannot refer to the scale of the collective transfer in support of its argument that it was not required to allow every staff member to comment before transferring her or him, even if this was done in a manner that was adapted and appropriate to the particular situation of this major reorganisation.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4283, 4399, 4451, 4593, 4609

    Keywords:

    consultation; general decision; right to be heard; transfer;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that, owing to the circumstances in which the complainant’s transfer took place, without him being afforded any opportunity to express his views or to be heard before it was put into effect, that transfer was bound to hurt and shock him and thereby cause him substantial and serious moral injury. The Tribunal considers that this moral injury will be fairly redressed by awarding the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros.

    Keywords:

    consultation; moral injury; right to be heard; transfer;



  • Judgment 4743


    137th Session, 2024
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close a complaint of harassment he had filed and two related matters.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the general principles applicable to an appeal body do not require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. All that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities (see, for example, Judgment 3447, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; oral proceedings; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4697


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

    Considerations 14-15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that it is clear from these provisions, which are peculiar to Eurocontrol’s Staff Regulations, that officials of the Organisation are entitled to a due process which affords them the opportunity to be fully heard in connection with the misconduct of which they are accused and to a genuine opportunity to express themselves on the “penalty envisaged” in terms both of its content and of its proportionality to the facts complained of.
    In the present case, bearing in mind that the Director General had the ability to apply a large range of disciplinary measures which had to be commensurate with the facts complained of and which had potentially significant consequences for the complainant depending on the severity of the penalty decided upon, the Tribunal considers that the provisions required the complainant to be given the opportunity to make observations on the penalty envisaged by the Director General before that penalty was imposed.
    [...]
    The Tribunal considers that the Organisation therefore breached its own disciplinary rules and substantially undermined the complainant’s right to be heard under the Staff Regulations in order to put forward his comments on the penalty envisaged against him. This breach of the rules was all the more serious that the penalty in question was significant and had severe consequences for the complainant, as downgrading by two grades brought with it an immediate and permanent reduction by almost 20 per cent of the amount of his pension.

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; patere legem; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4662


    136th Session, 2023
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    [W]hile it is true that the complainant received belatedly the opinion of the Workforce Mobility Committee which had given its view on her application, the submissions and documents in the file show that the Committee was mindful of the complainant’s grievances on this point and forwarded the opinion to her so it could receive her comments, which the complainant was able to submit to the Committee before it delivered its recommendation. The complainant was therefore able to comment on the relevant issues relating to the decisions that were the subject of her internal appeal and, in particular, on the Organization’s arguments (see Judgment 4408, consideration 4). The complainant’s allegations of failure to observe the adversarial principle have not been proven.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4637


    135th Session, 2023
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] submits that the objection procedure before the Appraisals Committee set out in Circular No. 366 does not include the same safeguards as the internal appeal procedure before the Appeals Committee. However, the complainant does not put forward any arguments showing the objection procedure to be flawed. That the procedure before the Appraisals Committee is a written procedure, unless otherwise decided, does not breach his right to be heard. The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision (see Judgments 4408, consideration 4, and 2598, consideration 6), but there is no general principle requiring her or him to be given an opportunity to present oral submissions (see Judgment 4398, consideration 4). Furthermore, the complainant had the opportunity to submit his observations at several points during the conciliation procedure and in the objections he submitted to the Appraisals Committee.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598, 4398, 4408

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; rating; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4622


    135th Session, 2023
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for reasons of health.

    Considerations 10 and 13

    Extract:

    Under the Tribunal’s settled case law, which is based on a general principle of international civil service law, the administrative status of a staff member cannot be unilaterally altered to her or his detriment by the employing organisation without that staff member having been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measure beforehand (see, for example, Judgments 3124, consideration 3, 1817, consideration 7, or 1484, consideration 8). Clearly, this case law must be applied with the utmost stringency where a decision with such far-reaching consequences as the termination of an appointment is involved.
    [...]
    The Tribunal points out that, far from being a mere procedural flaw, the breach of the right to be heard identified above had a tangible bearing on the outcome of the present case. If the complainant had been given the opportunity to submit comments during the attempt to identify a position accommodating her functional impairments, she could, for example, have provided the multidisciplinary team with useful information for determining jobs at her level of responsibility that she herself considered could be adapted to her needs, which might have allowed the team to conduct its search more effectively. Similarly, if the complainant had been allowed to comment on the team’s report before the decision on her situation was taken, she could have pointed out several shortcomings in it that were correctly identified by the JAAB in its opinion, such as the lack of an exact list of positions examined during the search and the failure to give sufficient consideration to her options for vocational retraining. Thus, although the Tribunal considers that the material in the file does not permit a formal finding that, as the JAAB concluded, the Office did not genuinely use all available means to identify a position that could be allocated to the complainant, it is in any event clear that it was essential to the quality of the decision-making process that any comments made by the complainant on the efforts undertaken to that end be taken into account.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124

    Keywords:

    right to be heard; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4593


    135th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As regards the complainant’s [...] plea alleging that he was not heard before the impugned decision was taken to his detriment, the Tribunal has already held that the general principle protecting an official’s right to be heard cannot be applied to a general, impersonal decision which is collective in scope (see Judgment 4283, consideration 6). That same case law applies to the situation where, as in the present case, the contested decision is purely and simply the consequence of a general decision of that kind.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4283

    Keywords:

    general decision; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 4586


    135th Session, 2023
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Rule 10.3 does not make any explicit provision for an official concerned to be heard before the decision to suspend her or him is announced. Indeed, suspension is an interim precautionary measure which, in principle, must be adopted urgently, and this will often make it impossible to invite the person concerned to express her or his opinion beforehand. Nevertheless, a person’s right to be heard must be exercised before the substantive decision is taken to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 3138, consideration 10(a), and 2365, consideration 4(a)).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 3138

    Keywords:

    due process; right to be heard; suspension;



  • Judgment 4399


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was not notified of this transfer until the meeting of 12 November 2009 at which he was informed orally that the decision had been taken. Despite the Organisation’s arguments to the contrary, that notification cannot be considered as a proper consultation with the complainant prior to the decision being taken.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; right to be heard;



  • 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 complainant’s 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 complainant’s 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 4283


    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 cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The general principle that an official has the right to be heard before an individual decision that adversely affects her or him is taken plainly cannot be applied to an impersonal decision which is collective in scope, such as the cancellation of a competition.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; competition cancelled; right to be heard;



  • 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 5

    Extract:

    The complainant [...] takes issue with the fact that the investigators did not allow her to submit comments on the evidence gathered or to inspect the file compiled during the investigation before they completed their report. However, the investigators were not required to do so. In addition, the Tribunal observes that the complainant, who had already been interviewed by the investigators for the first time on 3 May 2016, was, in fact, re-interviewed at the end of the investigation, as she was given a second interview on 16 January 2017, shortly before the investigation report [...] was drawn up. It should be noted that the complainant was informed of the substance of the report, as required under the Tribunal’s case law, after it was submitted, since the Director General’s decision of 15 May 2017 contained a detailed summary of the report and was accompanied by a full copy of the part of the report setting out the investigators’ findings.

    Keywords:

    inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;



  • 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 Tribunal’s 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 complainant’s 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 Tribunal’s 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 complainant’s 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 complainant’s 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 Tribunal’s 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 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 Tribunal’s 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 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; due process; duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; right to reply;



  • Judgment 4039


    126th Session, 2018
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The sole purpose of an investigation is to establish the existence of facts that may be contested during disciplinary proceedings in which the rights of defence must be scrupulously safeguarded. The Tribunal considers that it is “clear that the rules relating to due process, in particular, which must be respected scrupulously during the actual disciplinary proceedings [...] (see, for example, Judgment 2475), do not apply during the investigation of matters brought before an internal auditing body” (see Judgment 2589, under 7). The Tribunal holds that, while it is preferable to notify the person concerned that she or he is to be the subject of an investigation, except where this would be liable to compromise the outcome of the investigation, such notification is not a requisite element of due process (see Judgment 3295, under 8).
    Once the investigation is opened, the organisation is under an obligation to provide the person concerned with an opportunity to explain her or his conduct and to present any information on her or his behalf. The Uniform Guidelines for Investigations do not, however, stipulate when the person concerned must be given this opportunity, since the aforementioned paragraph 17 of the Guidelines provides that this matter “is regulated by the rules, policies and procedures of the Organization”. In the International Labour Office there is no internal manual or practical guide setting out the procedure to be followed when conducting such interviews. Like the JAAB, the Tribunal considers that the above-mentioned opportunity should preferably be afforded before rather than during the interview. However, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the complainant was in any way prevented from defending himself on account of the manner in which the investigation was conducted (see, in this connection, Judgment 2771, under 18).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475, 2589, 2771, 3295

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top