Misconduct (392, 397, 498, 499, 507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943, 509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917, 642, 679, 820, 827, 652, 728, 860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Misconduct
Total judgments found: 161
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 3578
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3575
121st Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of discharge from duty with due notice.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he case law consistently holds that the principle of equal treatment cannot be invoked to protect misconduct (see Judgments 2773, 2555, 1977, 1271 and 207)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555, 2773
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
Judgment 3502
120th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General's decision to partially adopt the Appeal Board's recommendations on his appeal against his temporary suspension.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; joinder; misconduct; organisation's interest; suspension;
Judgment 3430
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that, in imposing the sanction of dismissal, the President of the EPO had not exceeded the bounds of her discretionary authority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3364
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns on the grounds of a procedural flaw the decision to maintain his dismissal for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3348
118th Session, 2014
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to summarily dismiss him for misconduct (fraud).
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3297
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was dismissed for misconduct following a disciplinary investigation, which found that he had forged and falsified documents.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the EPO, taken altogether, cannot be ignored. “Those circumstances point convincingly to guilt and there is no credible innocent explanation for them. Further, the explanation offered by the complainant is implausible to a degree and is simply incompatible with the circumstances put in evidence by the Organization” (see Judgment 2231, under 5). [...] “The Tribunal will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter. It will dismiss the complaint if there is a set of precise and concurring presumptions of the complainant’s guilt” (see Judgment 1384, under 10)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1384, 2231
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is true that an organisation should investigate allegations of misconduct in a timely manner both in the interests of the person being investigated and the organisation. These interests include, among other things, safeguarding the reputations of both parties and ensuring that evidence is not lost."
Keywords:
consequence; delay; duty of care; evidence; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant also takes the position that PAHO failed to give him a warning or the opportunity to correct the situation prior to bringing disciplinary action. In Judgment 1661, under 3, the Tribunal framed an organisation’s obligations in the following terms: “Before an organisation imposes a disciplinary penalty such as dismissal it must warn the staff member and give him the opportunity not only of stating his own case but also of refuting the organisation’s: in other words, there must be due process. So he must be told of the charges and of the evidence against him. If the proceedings are to be properly adversarial, he must be free to give his own version of the facts, refute that evidence, adduce his own, take part in the discussion of it, and at least once crossquestion the expert and other witnesses. See, for example, Judgments 512 […] under 5; 907 […] under 4; 999 […] under 5; 1082 […] under 18; 1133 […] under 7; 1212 […] under 3; 1228 […] under 4; 1251 […] under 8; 1384 […] under 5, 10 and 15; 1395 […] under 6; 1484 […] under 7 and 8.”"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 512, 907, 999, 1082, 1133, 1212, 1228, 1251, 1384, 1395, 1484, 1661
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; organisation's duties; right to reply; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 3289
116th Session, 2014
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant received a written censure for failing to comply with the procedure of authorizing outside activities and remuneration.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[I]t is observed that there is no limitation period in relation to disciplinary proceedings in the Staff Regulations and Rules. The complainant’s attempt to analogise from the Staff Rule concerning the recovery of an overpayment within one year is without merit. An overpayment is in no way analogous to misconduct. It is true that, if possible, an organisation should promptly take action when the possibility of misconduct on the part of a staff member comes to its attention. However, the complainant’s assertion that an alleged violation of a Staff Rule, if considered serious, “has to be investigated promptly and at the latest one year after the Administration took notice thereof” has no foundation in law or in the Staff Regulations and Rules."
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; censure; complaint allowed; consultation; disciplinary measure; flaw; misconduct; outside activity; salary;
Judgment 3236
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that the decision to subject him to an investigation was tainted with misuse of power.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Concerning the initiation of the investigation itself, the Tribunal’s case law is clear that a decision to begin an investigation into misconduct at that stage is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364
Keywords:
decision; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3138
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; suspension;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The suspension of an official, even if it is only an interim measure, is liable to undermine the esteem in which that person is held within the employing organisation or, at least, within the service to which he or she is assigned. In these circumstances, having to face other people and being suddenly plunged into precarious inactivity can generate acute stress which might have repercussions on the person’s health, depending on his or her sensitivity and constitution. Even if suspension is not necessarily followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction, it is plainly a decision adversely affecting the person concerned which must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct (see Judgment 2698, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2698
Keywords:
misconduct; suspension;
Judgment 3137
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
Judgment 3102
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
administrative delay; career; consequence; delay; duty of care; exception; misconduct; official; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; right;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Even in the absence of fraud or other dishonesty, systematic action taken for the purpose of circumventing the Financial Rules by a person whose function it is to authorise the expenditure of the funds of an international organisation constitutes serious misconduct."
Keywords:
definition; misconduct; serious misconduct;
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; right to reply; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3081
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; serious misconduct; suspension; termination of employment;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 2944
109th Session, 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"[A]ccording to firm precedent, as recalled in particular in Judgments 207, 1984 and 2773, the disciplinary authority has a discretion to determine the severity of a disciplinary measure justified by a staff member's misconduct, provided that the measure adopted is not manifestly out of proportion to the offence. It cannot be alleged that termination of the complainant’s appointment, the disciplinary measure chosen, was manifestly out of proportion to the degree of seriousness of the acts listed above, notwithstanding the complainant’s length of service with UNESCO and her recognised professional abilities. The Tribunal therefore considers that, in taking this decision, the Director General did not exceed the limits of his discretionary authority."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1984, 2773
Keywords:
case law; condition; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Consideration 45
Extract:
"By not paying the sums owed to creditors for more than ten years and not complying with several court rulings ordering her to meet her obligations, the complainant, an international civil servant, plainly did not show due respect for local laws and institutions and for the public policy of the host State [...]."
Keywords:
debt; domestic law; judgment of the tribunal; member state; misconduct; municipal court; staff member's duties;
Consideration 48
Extract:
"[B]reaches of private financial obligations on the part of international civil servants are incompatible with the rules of conduct by which they must abide (see, for example Judgments 53, under 7, 1480, under 3, or 1584, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 1480, 1584
Keywords:
breach; conduct; debt; misconduct; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"It does not follow that, because the Administration has failed to prove misconduct, the charge of serious misconduct was "specious" or part of a campaign of bullying and intimidation, as claimed by the complainant. On that issue the complainant bears the onus of proof. And as the evidence [...] is inconclusive, his claims in this regard must be rejected."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; misconduct; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was charged with misconduct in relation to the publication of an article which reflected badly on WIPO, WIPO's Director General and her former supervisors. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on her, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years. She challenged the imposition of sanctions, denying any responsibility for the publication of the article and arguing that they were tailored to specifically delay her promotion, which the Tribunal had ordered in Judgment 2706. The Tribunal found that the evidence fell far short of establishing the complainant's responsibility.
"The determinative issue in this complaint centres on the finding that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article. It is well established that the individual accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent. It is equally well established that the accuser bears the burden of proof. WIPO does not deny that it bears the burden of proof but submits that the standard of proof is "precise and concurring presumptions". The Tribunal does not accept this submission. In Judgment 2786, under 9, it held that in the case of misconduct the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; bias; burden of proof; evidence; liability; misconduct; presumption of innocence;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; en banc review; misconduct; plenary judgment; termination of employment;
Consideration 83
Extract:
"A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
