Jugement n° 4746
Décision
The complaint is dismissed.
Synthèse
The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Mots-clés du jugement
Mots-clés
Forclusion; Obligations de l'organisation; Procédures parallèles; Requête rejetée; Ouverture d'une enquête
Considérant 9
Extrait:
It should be recalled that, according to firm precedent, an organisation has no obligation to open a full investigation into allegations of harassment if the allegations are insufficiently substantiated at the stage of the preliminary assessment. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3640, consideration 5, “[t]he sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of [...] a complaint [of harassment] is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation”.
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Mots-clés
Obligations de l'organisation; Harcèlement; Ouverture d'une enquête
Considérant 10
Extrait:
[T]he Tribunal finds that [the Office of the Inspector General] conducted a thorough review of the voluminous documentation submitted by the complainant and a detailed analysis of her allegations. [The Office of the Inspector General]’s conclusion that the complainant’s harassment complaint should be closed was based on the results of its preliminary assessment that “there was no prima facie case of harassment, abuse of authority, retaliation or other misconduct”. In determining that the complaint should be closed for a lack of a prima facie case, [the Office of the Inspector General] acted within its authority and fully in line with the provisions of the [the Office of the Inspector General] Investigation Guidelines […].
Mots-clés
Règles de l'organisation; Enquête; Organe d'enquête
Considérant 12
Extrait:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and that an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see, for example, Judgment 2100, consideration 13).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100
Mots-clés
Preuve; Charge de la preuve; Cumul; Harcèlement
Considérant 12
Extrait:
Administrative decisions cannot be characterized harassment solely because they are unlawful (see Judgments 4241, consideration 9, and 2861, consideration 37).
Référence(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 4241
Mots-clés
Harcèlement; Décision administrative
| 
