Inquiry (163,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Inquiry
Total judgments found: 151
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4900
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, in his first complaint, the partial rejection of his harassment complaint before investigation and, in his fourth complaint, the rejection of his harassment complaint after investigation.
Considerations 35, 43-44
Extract:
[T]he Investigating Subpanel did not disclose to the complainant in any manner the content of the testimony given by Ms F., the only person interviewed during the investigation apart from the complainant and Mr T.S., which prevented the complainant from commenting on that testimony if necessary.
In his complaint before the Tribunal, the complainant submits that this constitutes a breach of the adversarial principle contrary to the Tribunal’s case law, in particular to what the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3065, considerations 7 and 8 [...]
As is evident from the above considerations, the Tribunal dismissed the reasoning followed in this case by both the Director-General in her decision and the JAAB in its opinion, according to which the adversarial principle did not apply at the investigation stage of a harassment procedure and that there was no need to disclose interview notes to the staff member concerned at that stage given that the rules applicable within the Organization did not so require.
It follows from the foregoing that, owing to that procedural flaw and as the Tribunal has already found, for example, in [...] Judgments 4781 and 4739 in similar situations to that of the present case, the Director-General’s impugned decision of 21 October 2021 as well as the previous decision of 16 November 2020 on which it is based must also be set aside [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 4739, 4781
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;
Judgment 4884
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following an investigation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). Where a specific procedure is laid down by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules correctly applied. The Tribunal has also considered that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in the sense that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the staff member accused, and that she or he be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charge made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). To establish that harassment took place, the alleged facts do not need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, contrary to what is required when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the perpetrator of harassment (see, to that effect, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
As regards the scope of the review that it may exercise over a decision to reject a harassment complaint, the Tribunal recalls that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, to that effect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, it will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4289, 4291, 4344, 4344, 4471, 4541, 4663
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; organisation's duties; role of the tribunal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). When a specific procedure is prescribed by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules must be applied correctly. The Tribunal has also held that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the person implicated and to give that person the opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). It is, however, well settled that a staff member alleging harassment does not need to demonstrate, nor does the person or body evaluating the claim, that the facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that harassment occurred (see, in this connection, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
The Tribunal recalls, furthermore, that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of facts, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, in this respect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
Considerations 15-17
Extract:
The Tribunal notes, however, that the complainant also submits that the review of the merits of his complaint is tainted by various legal flaws at the first stage of the procedure followed in that regard.
Among the various flaws alleged by the complainant, there is one which also appears substantial in the Tribunal’s view.
As is clear from the above, it is established, as he claims in his written submissions, that the complainant, although he addressed a specific request to the investigators on 28 October 2019, even before the alleged harasser and the witnesses were heard and before the investigators drew up their report, did not have knowledge of the statement made to them by Mr P.H., nor indeed of the witness statements gathered by them, or at least of their content, even in anonymized form, to be able to challenge these before the investigators drew up their report and the Director General made his original decision. This is clearly contrary to the Tribunal’s case law whereby, by virtue of the adversarial principle, the complainant in a harassment complaint must be informed, even before the end of the investigation, of the content of statements made by the persons accused and any testimony gathered as part of the investigation, in order to challenge them if necessary (see, in this respect, Judgment 4781, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein).
It follows that the review of the merits of the first complaint filed by the complainant is itself tainted by at least one substantial flaw which also renders unlawful the decision taken by the Director General on 27 March 2020.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4781
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;
Judgment 4781
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an accusation of harassment made by an official requires an international organisation to investigate the matter ensuring that due process is observed, for the protection of both the person(s) accused and the accuser (see, for example, Judgments 3617, consideration 11, 3065, consideration 10, 2973, consideration 16, and 2552, consideration 3).
As a result, in the event of an accusation of harassment, the adversarial principle requires, in particular, that the accuser be kept informed of the content of statements made by the person(s) accused and any testimony gathered as part of the investigation, in order to challenge them if necessary (see Judgments 4110, consideration 4, 3617, consideration 12, and 3065, considerations 7 and 8).
In the present case, it is not apparent from the file that the complainant was informed during the course of the investigation, as is required by this case law, of the content of the observations made by the supervisors who were the subject of her complaint or the statements of the witnesses heard by the investigator. On the contrary, all the evidence appears to confirm the complainant’s assertion, which is not expressly disputed by the organisation in its submissions, that the information in question was not provided to her. In that regard, the Tribunal notes in particular that the sections of the report of 17 September 2019 that deal with the methodology of the investigation and the detailed examination of the complainant’s various allegations indicate that she was indeed heard at the start of the investigation but was not subsequently invited to comment on the reactions of her supervisors when they were questioned by the investigator, nor on the statements from the various witnesses heard by the investigator.
It follows from these findings that the investigation in question was not conducted in compliance with the adversarial principle.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2973, 3065, 3617, 4110
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; harassment; inquiry; right to be heard;
Judgment 4779
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Considerations 4 & 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant argues, first, that the time limit within which [...] an investigation must normally be carried out was exceeded.
[...]
However, neither the time limit within which the investigation should normally be completed, nor the requirement to state the reasons why that time limit has been exceeded, is intended to have the effect of invalidating the investigation report in the event of a breach. However regrettable they may be, the anomalies in question are therefore not such as to render unlawful the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the findings contained in that report.
[...]
[T]he fact that the prescribed time limit within which the disciplinary chamber must in principle deliver its advice was exceeded does not have the effect of invalidating that advice, and therefore – as with the failure to comply with the time limit applicable to investigations, discussed above – it has no bearing on the lawfulness of the sanction imposed at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; inquiry; time limit;
Judgment 4749
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his appointment with compensation in lieu of notice.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that, under its settled case law, it will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4065, consideration 5) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4065
Keywords:
inquiry; judicial review;
Judgment 4745
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him after due notice.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal holds that the [Office of the Inspector General]’s preliminary assessment is not strictly part of the disciplinary proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3944, consideration 4), and Instruction IN/275 does not provide for its disclosure. Therefore, its non-disclosure does not vitiate the disciplinary process. In any case, a complainant is entitled to receive the preliminary assessment, if she or he requests it (see Judgment 4659, consideration 4). In the present case, the complainant did not request the disclosure of the OIG’s preliminary assessment either in his request for review or in his internal appeal. He raised this issue for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is satisfied that, since the Organization has disclosed it in its submissions before it, the complainant has had ample opportunity to comment on it.
Regarding [the Office of Legal Affairs’] recommendation on disciplinary measures, the Tribunal notes that Instruction IN/275 contains no provision requiring the disclosure of this recommendation to the subject of the disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, pursuant to paragraph 20 of Instruction IN/275, [the Office of Legal Affairs’] recommendation is a mandatory step in the disciplinary proceedings and, as such, it is plainly foundational to the disciplinary decision taken at the end of those proceedings.
[…]
[T]he Tribunal is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in compliance with the applicable internal rules […], and consistent with the due process and the adversarial principles (see, for example, Judgments 4011, consideration 9, 3872, consideration 6, and 2771, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3872, 3944, 4011, 4659
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Director-General’s interview during the investigation is a statement of the accused person during an investigation process and, therefore, cannot be used against its author and be construed as harassment.
Keywords:
inquiry;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that a decision of an international organisation finding that a harassment complaint is unfounded and rejecting a claim for compensation for the material or moral injury allegedly suffered by the staff member who lodged that complaint is an administrative decision that may adversely affect her or him. [T]he Tribunal has on several occasions held that any staff member who lodges such a complaint is entitled to know whether the person named in the complaint has been found to have committed acts of harassment and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, [...] Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, consideration 4). Consequently, contrary to the JAB’s view, the complainant was entitled to challenge in an internal appeal both the decision [...] informing her that the case had been closed because there had been no harassment and the decision [...] confirming that initial decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 4541
Keywords:
cause of action; harassment; inquiry;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that the redacted investigation report was not sent to the complainant until after the JAB had made a recommendation to that effect in its report [...].
[...]
In those circumstances, [...] the fact that the complainant did not receive the investigation report until she was informed of the President’s final decision resulted in her being deprived of the opportunity to challenge the findings of the investigation effectively during the appeal proceedings before the JAB.
[T]he Tribunal must conclude that the procedure followed before the JAB was also unlawful in that the JAB was not provided with all the evidence which would have enabled it to give a fully informed decision on the internal appeal before it (see, to that effect, Judgment 1372, consideration 11). In consequence, the complainant was deprived of the right to have her internal appeal properly examined (on the obligation of any international organisation to ensure that the rules are correctly applied and due process followed, see, inter alia, Judgments 2219, 2654, 2700 and 3065).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1372, 2219, 2654, 2700, 3065
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry; internal procedure; report;
Judgment 4519
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The wording of Staff Rule 10.1.3(a) makes plain that the suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3 is intended as a measure that may be taken “pending an investigation” and that the staff member concerned may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until its end. As the Tribunal has already held concerning the application of similarly worded staff rules in another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending a staff member until the end of the investigation into the actions of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently brought against the staff member concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Contrary to what the Organisation submits, this approach does not contradict that adopted in previous cases concerning ITU. Although in Judgment 3138 the Tribunal accepted the lawfulness of a suspension ordered after the delivery of the report into the investigation of the acts of which the complainant was accused in that case, it did so on the ground, set out in consideration 11 of that judgment, that an “additional investigation” was planned when the decision was taken. Nor is Judgment 2601, also quoted by ITU, relevant since it concerned a challenge to decisions taken at the end of a disciplinary procedure and, as pointed out in consideration 13 thereof, did not call into question the lawfulness of the prior suspension. Finally, although ITU also refers to Judgment 3502, concerning another organisation where the suspension of staff members is governed by similar provisions, the Tribunal observes that the suspension at issue in that judgment was ordered pending the outcome of an investigation and that, although the suspension was extended until the end of the subsequent disciplinary procedure, the plea was not framed in the same way in the other case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2601, 3138, 3880
Keywords:
inquiry; patere legem; suspension;
Judgment 4313
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Where the investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal will ordinarily remit the matter to the organisation concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted. However, the complainant does not wish for it to do so since she left the ILO on health grounds and, in her view, a fresh investigation would cause her additional suffering and might further jeopardise her health. She requests that the Tribunal itself consider the merits of her grievance concerning the alleged harassment. In that regard, she cites Judgment 3170, under 25.
In view of the time which has elapsed since the disputed events, and as the complainant has now left the Organization, it would no longer serve any useful purpose to order the holding of a fresh investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3170
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4311
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has recently ruled that “where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error” (see Judgments 3757, under 6, and 3872, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3757, 3872
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report; judicial review;
Judgment 4308
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s second argument is that there were irregularities in the investigation process. The difficulty with the complainant’s pleas in this respect is that they constitute a series of assertions about what should have happened by way of investigative steps, what analysis should have been undertaken and criticism of the conclusions reached at various stages in the process. However, no reference is made in support of those assertions to any normative legal document or the Tribunal’s case law that establishes that such steps should have been taken, the analysis undertaken as suggested or any particular conclusion reached.
Keywords:
burden of proof; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4297
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant suggests he would have been prejudiced by advice he said he received from the OPCW that his challenges to the appointment of the investigators did not involve a reviewable administrative decision and thus, it is said, he waived the right to file a complaint before the Tribunal in relation to the decision concerning the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. The submission fails to recognise that a decision concerning the composition of an investigating panel is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision and may, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the final decision (see, for example, Judgment 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant’s submissions [...] essentially ask the Tribunal to appraise the evidence presented in the OIOS Preliminary Assessment and in the Internal Audit Investigation Report, and to rule that the Appeals Committee and the Director General have erred in their assessments of the evidence. In Judgment 3593, consideration 12, the Tribunal stated as follows:
“[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
(See also Judgments 4091, consideration 17, 3882, consideration 13, and 3682, consideration 8.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 4091
Keywords:
evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
Essentially, the “flaws” [the complainant] has identified are that they did not agree with his perceptions. He has not submitted any evidence that the investigators “failed to obtain, refused to accept or ignored relevant evidence, took account of irrelevant evidence or misconstrued the evidence” (see Judgment 3447, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4279
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant [...] takes issue with the fact that the investigators did not allow her to submit comments on the evidence gathered or to inspect the file compiled during the investigation before they completed their report. However, the investigators were not required to do so. In addition, the Tribunal observes that the complainant, who had already been interviewed by the investigators for the first time on 3 May 2016, was, in fact, re-interviewed at the end of the investigation, as she was given a second interview on 16 January 2017, shortly before the investigation report [...] was drawn up. It should be noted that the complainant was informed of the substance of the report, as required under the Tribunal’s case law, after it was submitted, since the Director General’s decision of 15 May 2017 contained a detailed summary of the report and was accompanied by a full copy of the part of the report setting out the investigators’ findings.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; right to be heard;
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits [...] that the two investigators who were appointed by the Director General to investigate her complaint [...] did not offer the requisite guarantees of impartiality.
[...]
The investigators appointed in this case were the Director of the Maastricht Upper Airspace Control Centre [...] and the Agency’s Head of Internal Audit. Since the departments headed by those two senior Eurocontrol’s officials did not come under the Directorate of Resources, the complainant is plainly wrong in contending that they were under the authority of Mr V. The Tribunal notes, moreover, that the officials in question considered it important to certify in their report that they did not have a reporting relationship with any of the parties to the dispute. While it is true that they were answerable to the Director General for the performance of their ordinary professional duties, that did not preclude them, in this case, from being entrusted with the investigation of the complaint in question, which was not directed against the Director General.
Theoretically, it would doubtless have been preferable, as the Director General himself admitted in his decision of 15 May 2017, to entrust the investigation into the harassment complaint against the Principal Director of Resources to a person outside Eurocontrol. The investigators in fact acknowledged that they had experienced some “discomfort” in having to investigate Mr V.’s conduct. It is furthermore regrettable that the Rule of Application, which, under the Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, was to lay down the implementing provisions for that article, had not yet been adopted when the harassment complaint at issue was made, as the Rule did not come into force until 23 May 2017.
However, the fact remains that these two officials – who had, in compliance with the requirements of Article 4.8 of the aforementioned Policy, received training in conducting an investigation before they took on that assignment – provided all the guarantees necessary to assume the responsibility entrusted to them.
In this regard, the Tribunal points out that, contrary to what the complainant appears to argue in referring to Judgments 3071, 3337 and 3660, which she misinterprets, its case law does not require investigations into harassment to be entrusted to a standing investigative body specifically established for that purpose. For the relevant requirements to be met, it suffices that such investigations are carried out by completely independent investigators.
That was the case here, since the arguments, put forward in passing by the complainant, that the independence of one of the investigators was compromised by his holding an appointment for a limited period or that he was disqualified from conducting an investigation because he himself had been the subject of a harassment complaint in the past, are irrelevant.
Moreover, the excerpts from the investigation report and the records of the interviews on the file lead the Tribunal to consider that the complaint was investigated by the investigators with complete impartiality.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t should be recalled that it is not for the Tribunal, in view of the very nature of its role and the stage at which it intervenes in the disputes referred to it, to review all the findings of fact and assessments of evidence made by an internal investigative body which has gathered, as near as possible to the events, the information necessary to establish the truth of the matters at issue and, in particular, has heard the statements of the parties and various relevant witnesses at first hand. Under its settled case law, the Tribunal will only interfere with the findings of such a body, provided they have been made in the course of a properly-conducted procedure complying with the applicable rules of law, if they involve an obvious error of judgement (see, for example, Judgments 3593, under 12, 3682, under 8, 3831, under 28, or 3995, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3831, 3995
Keywords:
evidence; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Every international organisation is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see Judgment 2067, consideration 17). It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgments 3071, consideration 36, and 3337, consideration 11). Having noted that no investigation had been conducted by HRD, the JAAB itself undertook a detailed examination of the allegations. Such an approach is acceptable if the examination satisfies the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law with regard to investigations into harassment allegations: such investigations must be prompt and thorough, the facts must be established objectively and in their overall context, the law must be applied correctly and due process must be observed (see Judgments 2642, consideration 8, and 3692, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2642, 3071, 3337, 3692
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4241
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
Although the complainant did not provide a list of witnesses in her harassment complaint, she stated therein that she had named witnesses throughout that complaint wherever relevant. She identified about twenty-four persons with reference to various allegations of harassment which she proffered. Initially, between October and November 2016, the IOS interviewed seven of those persons and then transmitted a summary of their testimony to the complainant in December 2016 for her comment. In her response, dated 13 January 2017, the complainant noted that the IOS had not interviewed her or other witnesses whom she had identified. In March 2017, the IOS called five other witnesses. It called the complainant for oral testimony in May 2017. The IOS did not call some of the persons whom the complainant had identified concerning specific allegations, the UNAIDS Chief of Staff and the UNAIDS Executive Director in particular. This was in breach of proper procedure, particularly given that the IOS has not explained why it did not hear those persons (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3).
There was also a breach of proper procedure when, notwithstanding the clear discrepancies between critical aspects of the evidence given by the complainant and the three persons whom she accused of harassment (some of which the complainant had detailed in her response of January 2017 and later in her oral testimony), the IOS did not call those persons again to clear the discrepancies (as contemplated by Article 24 of the Investigation Process) in order to determine the truth and properly establish the facts. Moreover, the IOS erred when contrary to the indication contained in paragraph 3.1.5 of the Policy, that harassment is normally prolonged and persistent, as well as the settled principle that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of an allegation of harassment, the IOS rejected each allegation of harassment separately without considering whether cumulatively they provided proof of harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111
Keywords:
due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; witness;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated that it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in a complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. It noted that it is in fact often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where it may be impossible to produce material evidence. It has further stated that, more generally, the question whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see, for example, Judgments 3233, consideration 6, and 3640, consideration 14). The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding that Mr F.C. had testified that he sustained treatment that was similar to that which the complainant alleged at the hands of the DXD/MER, who was then his second-level supervisor, his testimony found no place in the IOS’s analysis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3233, 3640
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4237
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision – taken after his resignation – to find him guilty of serious misconduct, and the decision to withhold from his separation entitlements an amount corresponding to financial losses allegedly incurred by WHO as a result of his misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 3757, under 6, 4024, under 6, 4026, under 5, and 4091, under 17), “where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7)”. Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, “it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)” (see Judgment 3757, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3593, 3682, 3757, 3757, 4024, 4026, 4091
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeal; investigation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
