Inquiry (163,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Inquiry
Total judgments found: 148
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"While internal investigative reports cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action against a staff member, they may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if they yield indications of irregularities justifying this (see, in this respect, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When the organisation concerned initiates proceedings in the light of such reports, it is not itself obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in these documents, but must simply ensure that the person in question is given the opportunity to reply to the findings they contain so as to respect the rights of defence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary charges; disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (for example, Judgments 999 and 2475), to object to evidence (for example, Judgment 2468) or to have a verbatim record of the evidence (for example, Judgment 1384). These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses' testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out to the Assistant Director-General and, later, the Director of the Human Resources Management Division, inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...]. In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the complainant had and exercised a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. There is no suggestion that he was in any way circumscribed in the way his appeal was conducted. Accordingly, the process, viewed in its entirety from the making of the subordinate's harassment complaint until the Committee reported to the Director-General, was one that satisfied the requirements of due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1384, 2468, 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply; testimony;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "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". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asserts that he was deliberately excluded from the decisive initial phase of the investigation, which made it impossible for him to prevent any tampering with the equipment seized in his office. He argues that because the search of his computer equipment was carried out in secrecy, his “worker’s dignity” and his right to privacy were unjustifiably violated which, in his view, renders the evidence thus gathered inadmissible. […] Any worker has the right to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference by an employer in his or her private life or correspondence. Any interference in a worker’s private life ordered exceptionally by an employer to safeguard the normal and secure functioning of a company’s information technology system must be undertaken in the presence of the worker or his or her representatives. If that is not possible owing to the urgency of the situation, all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure that the accessing of the worker’s personal files remains within the bounds of what is required for company security, that any unjustified disclosure or dissemination of personal information is avoided and that any tampering with the computer equipment is prevented. In addition, the person concerned must be informed without delay of the investigations conducted and given all reasonable means to assert his or her rights. These basic principles are applicable to employment relations within international organisations.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to privacy;
Judgment 2698
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he measure of suspension constitutes [...] an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the merits regarding a possible disciplinary measure, but which is designed to safeguard the interests of the Organization pending the outcome of an investigation to ascertain whether the accusations have any substance or not."
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; inquiry; investigation; organisation's interest; provisional decision; purpose; suspensive action;
Judgment 2654
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO recognise that she has been subjected to moral harassment and acknowledge all the repercussions this has had on her "human dignity and professional life". The Organization asks the Tribunal to find that there is no factual or legal basis to the complainant's claim that she notified the Administration of a case of moral harassment. The Tribunal considers "that the complainant did accuse her supervisor of harassment, and that the Organization, which was then under an obligation to initiate an objective inquiry into the validity of her accusations, failed to do so and has merely regretted the fact that it held no investigations.
By failing to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of such serious accusations, the defendant breached both its duty of care towards one of its staff members and its duty of good governance, thereby depriving the complainant of her right to be given an opportunity to prove her allegations."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; career; claim; condition; consequence; duty of care; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; working conditions; working relations;
Judgment 2642
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In Judgment 2552 the Tribunal pointed out that an accusation of harassment 'requires that an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused'. Its duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgment 1376)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552
Keywords:
due process; good faith; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; safeguard;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2605
102nd Session, 2007
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that informing a person in advance that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken is not a requisite element of due process. Although notification prior to the start of an investigation may well be the preferred course of action, in certain circumstances alerting an individual to the fact that an investigation is to be undertaken may well compromise the investigation. As well, it may be through a routine review or audit that irregularities are encountered. It is once irregularities have been identified that the individual must be informed of the allegations of irregularities with sufficient precision to enable him to respond adequately; he should then be given an opportunity to respond, in particular to defend himself against the allegations, and to make such further response as the circumstances require prior to any conclusions being reached."
Keywords:
duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal does not consider that in this case the requirements of due process were disregarded. The complainant was informed of the statements taken immediately after the incident and those gathered subsequently, and indeed of the observations made by the Chief of the Conferences Department, and he had several opportunities to express his own views and to comment on the documents submitted to the Joint Advisory Committee. There was no written rule or principle which obliged the Administration to take down those statements in the presence of the complainant, given that they were not used without his knowledge, or to hold a face-to-face meeting or a reconstitution on the spot of this regrettable incident."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1133
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; inquiry; investigation; right to reply; testimony;
Judgment 2552
101st Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
An accusation of harassment "requires that an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused."
Keywords:
due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; safeguard;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct following an investigation. "The procedure adopted in this case was clearly flawed in that the complainant was denied the opportunity to question any of the persons whose statements were used against him, evidence of little probative value was relied upon and, at least to some extent, he was required to prove his innocence instead of having the matters alleged proven against him. [...] It follows that the [...] decision [...] to dismiss the complainant must be set aside. The complainant shall be reinstated [...] and shall receive all arrears of salaries and other benefits; he must account for any earnings from other employment."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; burden of proof; consequence; disciplinary measure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; procedural flaw; reinstatement; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; testimony;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he obligations of an employer to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of its employees determine what is permissible. In particular, these considerations require 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."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; condition; good faith; inquiry; investigation; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2365
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(e)
Extract:
[The complainant] has misunderstood the internal nature of the investigative report. Since the latter was requested and produced as part of an internal audit, it cannot on its own serve as conclusive evidence against a staff member. On the other hand, it may yield indications of irregularities justifying the initiation of a disciplinary procedure, in the course of which the person charged must be allowed all admissible means of defence. The Director-General did not abuse his discretionary authority by considering that the investigative report contained indications which merited further scrutiny in the context of a disciplinary procedure, even on the assumption that he had been unable to study the report in full himself.
Keywords:
disciplinary charges; inquiry; investigation; investigation report;
Judgment 2364
97th Session, 2004
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
On 10 March 2002 the complainant was informed that an administrative investigation concerning him was to be conducted, which might lead to a disciplinary procedure. 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 enough information to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure. Since the latter must by definition be adversarial, the organisation cannot make use of evidence against the person concerned unless it has been gathered in compliance with proper adversarial procedure, as required by consistent case law, and the individual concerned may contest any measure not complying with that requirement.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 2351
97th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7(c) and 8(a)
Extract:
When he was recruited the complainant provided a copy of a diploma but its authenticity was questioned a few years later. The matter was queried with the educational establishment and the Secretary-General then issued the complainant a written censure. The Tribunal considers that "there was not sufficient proof either that the diploma was not issued to the complainant [...] or that the latter had been informed that, according to the [educational establishment], he was not entitled to receive it. The Secretary-General might have enquired further into the aspects which remained uncertain, but did not do so. The 'likelihood' referred to by the Secretary-General, if it is not incontrovertibly ascertained, cannot make up for the lack of conclusive evidence. Based as it is on an arbitrary appraisal of the facts, the impugned decision as far as it concerns the disciplinary sanction must therefore be set aside. Although it did not give rise to a written decision, the non-renewal of the short-term contract was based on charges levelled against the complainant in the course of the disciplinary procedure. The mere cancellation of the disciplinary sanction must entail that of the decision of non-renewal."
Keywords:
bias; consequence; contract; decision; decision quashed; degree; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; executive head; grounds; implied decision; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; right; short-term; terms of appointment; warning;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
There is no substance to the allegation of failure of due process. In particular, the mission report which gave the Organization information on which to base the decision to charge him, was a preliminary investigative tool and the complainant had no right to review its contents prior to the decision being made that the disciplinary procedure should be started. Once that procedure was under way, the complainant was given ample communication of the case against him and was afforded full opportunity to answer and make his defence. It was no breach of the principle of good faith for the Organization to ask the complainant for a statement of his activities and subsequently to use such statement, which was entirely exculpatory, as evidence of his deliberate attempt to mislead the investigation, which it manifestly was.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary charges; due process in disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; investigation report;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the principles relating to the protection of information, staff members are entitled, even outside the context of a dispute, to have access to significant information concerning them which is in the possession of the administration [...] This applies a fortiori in the context of a procedure in which such information is used to support a decision affecting a staff member. There are, however, special cases in which higher dictates preclude its disclosure (on this issue, see Judgment 1756, under 10(b)). A provision [...] which stipulates that the reports of joint disciplinary committees or other boards of enquiry are confidential, cannot be construed as preventing the disclosure of such reports to a staff member adversely affected by a measure taken against him. otherwise, the higher principle of the right to be heard would be violated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
confidential evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant's claim that the Tribunal should order the organization to undertake disciplinary investigations into the actions of [...] the staff member who allegedly entered a 'frivolous and dilatory' plea of irreceivability before the [Headquarters] Board [of Appeal], clearly cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, which has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against international organisations, let alone to cast judgment on the means of defence used on behalf of such organisations in the context of internal appeal proceedings or litigation."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; internal appeal; internal appeals body; investigation; organisation; receivability of the complaint; reply; right to reply;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is incomprehensible that no internal administrative investigation was conducted following an accident which involved a [...] vehicle [of the organization] driven by an employee of the organization in the context of an official mission, and which caused the death of two passengers, one of whom was a [...] staff member [of the organization], as well as the serious injuries suffered by the complainant. The fact that the Namibian authorities opened their own enquiry could not in any way exempt the organization from ascertaining whether the condition of the vehicle, the preparation of the mission and, more generally, the circumstances of the accident revealed any administrative failure, the consequences of which it would have a duty to bear. [...] There is no evidence to suggest that any internal enquiry whatsoever was conducted in connection with this accident. This failure caused the complainant an injury which the Tribunal considers to be equitably compensated by an award of 5,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
injury; inquiry; investigation; material damages; member state; misconduct; moral injury; omission; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 1899
88th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Disciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one."
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; official; other; refusal; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 1796
86th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The statements by the representative [of the organization] and by the complainant are at odds and there is no irrefutable evidence before the Tribunal. The conclusion is that what was needed was a proper inquiry to see whether on the strength of reliable evidence the charges against him stood up.
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; judicial review; misconduct;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
