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 2849
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"The question remains whether the sanction of dismissal was warranted in the circumstances. In Judgment 207 the Tribunal held that it is not its role to substitute one disciplinary sanction for another unless the penalty imposed is clearly out of proportion with the gravity of the offence. The Tribunal further commented in Judgment 2656, under 5, that '[...] lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature [...]. In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see Judgment 937).'"
"In the present case, the Director-General rejected the Appeals Committee's recommendation that a lesser sanction be imposed. [The] Director-General [...] observed that 'it is well established in law that unsatisfactory conduct and unsatisfactory performance are different matters with different administrative consequence'. While the Director-General's observation is correct, it does not follow that exemplary prior service is not a relevant mitigating factor in the determination of a proper sanction."
"It must be noted, however, that in the present case it was not a matter of a single transgression within the context of an otherwise unblemished career. The Director-General properly considered the incompatibility of the complainant's conduct with his role as a representative of the FAO and considered the nature of the actions of misconduct in deciding that, when taken together they justified a dismissal from service. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will not interfere."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 937, 2656
Keywords:
discretion; general principle; judicial review; misconduct; proportionality; termination of employment;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that where misconduct is denied, the onus is on the Administration to prove the misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, staff members are to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, under 9)."
"Although the complainant argues otherwise, the evidence gathered [...] clearly establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"It is to be noted that, in cases of dismissal, the staff member must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 635, under 10). Further, when misconduct is denied, it is for the Administration to prove it and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt (see Judgment 969, under 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 635, 969
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; termination of employment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The charge against the complainant was 'fraud'. As the charge was denied, it was for the Organization to establish that the complainant had knowingly made a false claim."
Keywords:
burden of proof; misconduct; organisation's duties; request by a party;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"The Tribunal also notes that the fact - which greatly surprises the complainant - that the UN did not consider it necessary to initiate proceedings against the other staff members whose conduct was criticised by the OIOS has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to the complainant in respect of the acts of which he is personally accused, since they are proven and imputable to him (see for example Judgments 207, 1271, 1977 or 2555)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; equal treatment; misconduct; official; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; hacking; misconduct;
Judgment 2699
104th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant [...] argues that other staff members who have committed similar acts to those in his case have not been subjected to the same level of disciplinary sanction. He bases this argument on an anonymous note he received by post regarding financial misconduct on the part of two other employees. Given the unreliable nature of the evidence on which the claim of unequal treatment is based, this argument will not be addressed.
Keywords:
misconduct; unequal treatment;
Judgment 2693
104th Session, 2008
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal's judgments have the authority of res judicata. They will be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on limited grounds. These grounds include the discovery of a new fact. A new fact is a fact on which the party claiming it was unable to rely through no fault of its own; it must be a material fact likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case (see Judgments 748, under 3, 1294, under 2, 1504, under 8 and 2270, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 748, 1294, 1504, 2270
Keywords:
admissible grounds for review; application for review; condition; definition; exception; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; limits; misconduct; new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; res judicata;
Judgment 2659
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"A hidden sanction is a measure which appears to be adopted in the interests of the Organization and in accordance with the applicable rules, but which in reality is a disciplinary measure imposed as a penalty for a transgression, whether real or imaginary. The true disciplinary nature of an administrative measure that constitutes a hidden sanction is not always apparent. It is therefore necessary to examine the particular circumstances in each case where there is an allegation that an administrative measure is a hidden sanction."
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; enforcement; hidden disciplinary measure; judicial review; misconduct; organisation's interest; purpose; written rule;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that the disciplinary measure imposed on him lacks proportionality. "In this respect, it may be noted that lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though a decision in that regard is discretionary in nature (see Judgments 203 and 1445). In determining whether disciplinary action is disproportionate to the offence, both objective and subjective features are to be taken into account and, in the case of dismissal, the closest scrutiny is necessary (see Judgment 937)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203, 937, 1445
Keywords:
breach; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; discretion; exception; judicial review; misconduct; proportionality; termination of employment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."
Keywords:
breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
[...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;
Judgment 2569
102nd Session, 2007
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The vacancy notice of the post the complainant applied for stipulated that nationals of all Member States of CERN - including Switzerland - could apply. She was selected for the post but was dismissed after CERN discovered that in her application form she had stated that she held Swiss nationality whereas she had not yet acquired it. "[W]hile it is true that the fact that the complainant was married to a Swiss national should in principle have enabled her to obtain Swiss nationality under the 'facilitated naturalisation' procedure, it is equally true that at the time she filled out her application form she did not hold Swiss nationality and had not even applied for it. [...] By making a false declaration, the complainant was guilty of misconduct which, when it came to light after her recruitment, was sufficient to invalidate her appointment and to justify the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the grounds that she fell short of the standards of loyalty and integrity that the Organization is entitled to expect of its staff. Although the complainant maintains that by imposing the disputed sanction the defendant breached the terms of her appointment and the applicable provisions of CERN’s Staff Rules and Regulations, she does not substantiate those allegations in any way, nor does she identify any breach of the rules of procedure followed by the Organization. The complaint must therefore be dismissed."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; date; disciplinary measure; marital status; member state; misconduct; misrepresentation; nationality; organisation; post; reinstatement; safeguard; staff member's duties; termination of employment; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2394
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.
Keywords:
acceptance; allowance; competition; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination of employment;
Judgment 2293
96th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"While there is no doubt whatever that the Organisation owes a duty of good faith to its staff - '[r]elations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith' (see Judgment 2116) - bad faith must be proved and is never presumed. [...] Although to act in bad faith is always to mismanage, the reverse is not the case and honest mistakes or even sheer stupidity will not, without more, be enough. Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
burden of proof; decision; evidence; good faith; lack of evidence; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 2288
96th Session, 2004
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the complainant had only a few hours [...] to defend his case [...] constitutes [in itself] a breach of due process".
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; right; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that the safeguard available to international civil servants in the form of the mandatory consultation of an advisory body prior to any disciplinary measure cannot legally speaking be said to be complied with unless that body has held an official meeting, the matter has been discussed among the members and minutes of the meeting have been concomitantly drawn up. In the present case, the complainant was denied an essential safeguard owing to the individual consultation of the Joint Advisory Committee members by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] and the disregard for the procedure established in the Staff Rules."
Keywords:
advisory body; condition; consultation; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; formal requirements; general principle; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2261
95th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
The complainant challenges a disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct based on the following three charges: (1) external commercial activities and misrepresentation, (2) disloyalty, and (3) insubordination. In the challenged decision, the Director-General refused to follow the Appeals Committee's recommendation to the effect that the three charges be dismissed and confirmed the dismissal, dealing in detail with the first charge. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence justifies the Director-General's position, it sets aside the impugned decision because "the Director-General entirely failed to give any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the Committee's recommendations respecting the second and third charges". The Tribunal adds that "it is not for [...] itself [to] examine the evidence to find justification for the unmotivated decision of the Director-General. [...] Nor should it condone the organization's failure to bring the internal appeal process to a timely and proper conclusion effectively depriving the complainant of both his remedy and his employment for over three years. Accordingly, it will quash the penalty on the first charge only and refer the matter back to the Director-General for a new decision on the penalty after giving the complainant full opportunity to make representations."
Keywords:
concurrent employment; conduct; decision; disciplinary measure; due process; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; fitness for international civil service; insubordination; internal appeal; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; refusal; report; right of appeal; right to reply; separation from service; termination of employment; time limit;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972
Keywords:
case law; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2226
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant was reassigned from one day to the next. "Considering the complainant's length of service (12 years with the organization), the absence of any report of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance on his part, or any indication of urgency that might have justified a sudden, unheralded management decision to reassign him, the action of the Director-General was flawed by procedural irregularity."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; flaw; lack of evidence; misconduct; notice; organisation; period; procedural flaw; reassignment; report; satisfactory service; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2190
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 2175
94th Session, 2003
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11(c)
Extract:
"The complainant states that the Director-General based the decision not to renew his contract on the false assumption that he was using [his] project for self-enrichment purposes. If that were true, however, it would be grounds for immediate termination and not merely non-renewal of a fixed-term contract."
Keywords:
contract; decision; executive head; fixed-term; grounds; misconduct; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 2072
91st Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The appeal procedure was inordinately long: the case was before the Committee for two years, yet it was not a very difficult one and it needed to be settled promptly [...] In these circumstances, the delay in resolving it amounts to negligence warranting compensation. The Tribunal therefore considers that the complainant is entitled to redress, and it sets the amount at 3,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; amount; internal appeals body; misconduct; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; right; submissions;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
