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

Institutional harassment (820,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Institutional harassment
Total judgments found: 9

  • Judgment 4243


    129th Session, 2020
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, a long series of examples of mismanagement or omissions which have compromised the dignity and career of an employee may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9).
    In the instant case, although a number of pleas made by the complainant have been rejected, the Tribunal has noted in the foregoing many examples of mismanagement [...].
    [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a series of errors of management or omissions is not, in itself, sufficient to establish institutional harassment. Such errors and omissions must also have compromised the official’s dignity and career prospects.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3315

    Keywords:

    institutional harassment;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is true that a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038

    Keywords:

    institutional harassment;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038

    Keywords:

    institutional harassment;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038

    Keywords:

    institutional harassment;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038

    Keywords:

    institutional harassment;



  • 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 3

    Extract:

    As the Organization recalls, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to decide whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
    However [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Considerations 5-16

    Extract:

    In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since the Tribunal’s case law has established that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
    Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
    The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
    The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
    In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation that has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 2524, 2594, 2771, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment;



  • Judgment 4038


    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 3

    Extract:

    [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to determine whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
    However, [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment;

    Considerations 5-18

    Extract:

    In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since the Tribunal’s case law has established that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
    Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
    The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
    The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
    In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation which has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 2364, 2524, 2594, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871

    Keywords:

    disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment;



  • Judgment 3315


    117th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks damages for the injury arising from breach of due process and institutional harassment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    breach; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 3250, under 9, that where a specific intentional example of institutional harassment is not identifiable, a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by an organisation, which compromises the dignity and career of an employee, may represent institutional harassment. The complainant’s receivable grounds, which are set out in consideration 21 of this judgment, and the allegations proffered in support, if proved, can individually and compendiously be bases for institutional harassment. Her appeal, which was filed on 25 April 2010, could not have been out of time when one of her grounds of appeal is, in effect, that she had been and still was being prejudicially denied a fair chance of employment in the Organization.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250

    Keywords:

    harassment; institutional harassment;



  • Judgment 3250


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed in part; harassment; injury; institutional harassment; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes that intent is not a necessary element of harassment and, in this case, it is not a single episode which creates the problem, but instead it is the accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. As such, the JAAB’s finding that “the long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Office […] compromised [the complainant’s] dignity and career” is well founded and the Tribunal is of the opinion that this administrative wrongdoing can be defined as institutional harassment."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; complaint allowed in part; harassment; injury; institutional harassment; organisation's duties; professional injury; respect for dignity;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; institutional harassment; organisation's duties;


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top