Serious misconduct (394,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Serious misconduct
Total judgments found: 66

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4

• Judgment 111

  
  17th Session, 1967
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 4-5

  Extract:

  The complainant made use of statements in the proceedings before the Tribunal "as tracts designed to discredit [the organisation] and the Administrative Tribunal." His actions could not have been directed to defending his freedom and rights. They were undoubtedly related to "activities exercised by [him] as an official of the organisation; as such they constituted serious misconduct and were consequently such as to justify the legal application of a disciplinary sanction [...] the free choice of the sanction to be imposed was within the Director-General's discretion."

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; discretion; duty of discretion; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; vexatious complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 96

  
  16th Session, 1966
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "The complainant's behaviour, in which he persisted over a period of several years in spite of warnings from the organisation and from the Tribunal, showed repeated infringements by him [...] of the Staff Regulations and was of a nature to throw public discredit on the organisation; it thus constituted serious misconduct under which [the applicable provision] was such as legally to justify his summary dismissal without notice."

  Keywords:

  conduct; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination of employment; vexatious complaint; warning;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 87

  
  15th Session, 1965
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant, a trade union official, made criticisms which were included in a tract. "The conduct which was deemed to justify [his] summary dismissal did not constitute misconduct serious enough to jeopardise or to be likely to jeopardise the reputation of the organization or its staff." Summary dismissal was not justified.

  Keywords:

  contract; duty of discretion; material damages; misconduct; moral injury; permanent appointment; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff representative; staff union activity; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "If the administrative authorities of [the organization] consider that an official has behaved improperly, they are normally required to follow the disciplinary procedure laid down by [the applicable text], which provides specific safeguards for the official concerned. Consequently, by reason of its severity and of the fact that no formalities are prescribed for its application summary dismissal must necessarily be an exceptional measure which can be allowed only under an express provision and in accordance with the terms of such provision."

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; enforcement; exception; misconduct; provision; safeguard; serious misconduct; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 79

  
  13th Session, 1964
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  The acts criticised show that "the complainant was guilty of serious misconduct; moreover, even if they had concerned only his private life - which is not the case - these acts were of a nature to compromise the organization's reputation and thus legally to warrant summary dismissal [...] under the terms laid down" in the relevant provision. The fact that the complainant "was ill at the time and that special sick leave for officials is normally provided for [...] constitutes no obstacle to the enforcement of the said provision by the Director-General."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; illness; organisation's reputation; outside activity; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 63

  
  11th Session, 1962
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  The "many breaches of duty imply serious misconduct. Not only did [the complainant] cause so much dissension among the teaching staff and students [...] that the [national] authorities intervened, but he compromised the reputation of [the organization] itself. From an objective point of view, he has incurred a heavy responsibility which is equally heavy if viewed from a subjective point of view. As an intellectual he was bound to be aware of the consequences of his actions and, as an expert on an important mission, he should have been scrupulously careful to show himself worthy of the confidence that had been placed in him."

  Keywords:

  conduct; duty of discretion; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; staff member's duties;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "It is [...] obvious that by [the complainant's] mere refusal to come to [headquarters] in response to the orders of the Director-General, he justified the sanction imposed on him. On this point too his dereliction of duty is patent. He rebelled against the authority of the Director-General instead of submitting to it as was his duty under [the Staff Regulations]. It was therefore knowingly that he failed to comply with his instructions. a most serious view must be taken of his behaviour."

  Keywords:

  conduct; insubordination; serious misconduct; staff member's duties;
  

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  "As this is the heaviest penalty which can be inflicted, and can be applied without prior consultation with a joint body, this provision must not be given a broad interpretation. It applies to an official who, in the first place, fails in his duty and, in the second place, thereby commits serious misconduct." In the present case, the complainant was dismissed without advance notice. "It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the conditions on which the validity of such an action depends were complied with, i.e. whether the complainant failed in his duty and was thus guilty of serious misconduct."

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; judicial review; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5

  
  1st Session, 1947
  International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "The fact of being [wrongfully] dismissed for misconduct has had a highly prejudicial effect on the moral and social standing of the Complainant and has necessarily crippled his chances of finding other means of livelihood in an employment corresponding to his capabilities and his experience[.] [O]n this ground, the [organisation] must compensate the Complainant for an injury which is both material and moral in character".

  Keywords:

  material injury; moral injury; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  Considerations

  Extract:

  Under the material provision only an official found "guilty" of misconduct may be dismissed. "[I]n order that an official may be considered as 'guilty', it is obviously necessary that he should be first informed in clear and precise terms of the grave charge against him and that he then have the possibility of defending himself before the competent authority before the latter takes its decision[.] [N]one of these conditions was fulfilled[.] [T]he [organisation] must therefore be charged with responsibility under this head".

  Keywords:

  decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; right to reply; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4