|
|
 |
|
|
Proportionality (210,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Proportionality
Total judgments found: 86
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4859
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The complainant’s lengthy service with UNAIDS and his recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4858
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Consideration 28
Extract:
The complainant’s lengthy service with UNAIDS and her recognised professional abilities and previous good record are not, by themselves, mitigating factors (see Judgment 3083, consideration 20), even though in some cases they can be (see Judgment 4457, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083, 4457
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 19
Extract:
In his internal appeal, the complainant submitted that the measure of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate, primarily because in imposing it, WFP did not take into consideration his “long and distinguished service” with it. He also submitted that the measure had been imposed on an improper evidentiary basis, which he repeats before the Tribunal. The Appeals Committee concluded that the measure of dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct the complainant committed, with which conclusion the Director-General concurred in the impugned decision, noting that in imposing that measure, he had taken into account the complainant’s service but had decided that the imposition of a less severe measure was not warranted having regard to the totality of the circumstances, including the public nature of the complainant’s actions and his position. The Tribunal is satisfied that this determination was open to the Director-General in the circumstances of the case and discerns no manifest error in that determination. It therefore rejects the complainant’s claim that the disciplinary measure of dismissal was not proportionate.
Keywords:
aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; conflict of interest; disciplinary measure; misconduct; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; proportionality; staff member's duties;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Regarding the disciplinary measure imposed on the complainant, the general principle in the Tribunal’s case law is that the severity of the sanction that is imposed on a staff member of an international organization whose misconduct has been established is in the discretion of the decision-making authority, who must however exercise it in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgments 3953, consideration 14, and 3640, consideration 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3953
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; misconduct; proportionality;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 47 and 49-50
Extract:
In support of her fourth plea, the complainant maintains that the organization furthermore ignored the principle of proportionality when it decided to impose a disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades upon her.
The Tribunal has often recalled that, while a disciplinary authority within an international organization has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member for misconduct, the decision must always respect the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgment 3640, consideration 29). In Judgment 4697, consideration 24, referring to its prior Judgment 4504, consideration 11, the Tribunal indeed observed that lack of proportionality is to be treated as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure even though the decision in that regard is discretionary in nature (see also Judgment 4745, consideration 11).
[…]
In a situation where the misconduct that formed the basis of the disciplinary sanction was, in the end, as properly noted by the Appeal Board, a failure to supervise a staff member, a demotion by two grades clearly lacked proportionality when balanced against the drastic consequences that a demotion by two grades entailed for the complainant, notably in a situation where, after close to 20 years within the organization, a demotion by two grades meant for her going back to a grade even lower than the one she held when she started at ITU in 2000. That demotion was moreover for an indefinite period of time and was thus punishing her up to the end of her career at ITU given her age and seniority, in a situation where the record was absolutely clear that she had no participation, no involvement and no benefit in the fraudulent scheme that remained undetected for everyone within the organization for more than seven years up until an external anonymous whistleblower warned ITU.
The Tribunal considers that, in the present case, the Secretary-General could not, without breaching the principle of proportionality, impose on the complainant the sanction of demotion by two grades. This was an error of law and it amounted to an irregularity that vitiated the impugned decision, as well as the prior decision […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4504, 4697, 4745
Keywords:
demotion; disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant […] requests that the Tribunal order that the new disciplinary measure to be imposed, if any, be limited to a lesser one than that which the Director-General imposed in his original decision of 8 May 2018, pursuant to the principle of double jeopardy. The Tribunal does not have the power to make orders of this kind, nor can it limit in such a way the discretion of the Director-General to determine the appropriate disciplinary measures, if any, to be imposed, in the event that misconduct is established.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; order; proportionality;
Judgment 4815
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his summary dismissal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4779
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 16
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, in particular, Judgments 4400, consideration 29, 3944, consideration 12, 3927, consideration 13, and 3640, consideration 29).
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the fraudulent acts referred to in consideration 15 above, although involving relatively modest amounts, constitute serious breaches of the duty of honesty incumbent on any member of the staff of an international organisation. In addition, the repeated failures by the complainant to honour private obligations were, as stated in consideration 13, liable to undermine the dignity of the status of international civil servant and tarnish the reputation of ITU. As correctly pointed out in the decision of 30 July 2021, the fact that the complainant worked in the Human Resources Management Department is an aggravating factor since it can normally be assumed that staff within that department will be particularly careful to observe the ethical standards expected of the organisation’s staff members. Lastly, although the personal difficulties referred to above might certainly be considered as a mitigating factor, the facts at issue would in any case be no less serious on that account.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944, 4400
Keywords:
aggravating circumstances; disciplinary measure; discretion; proportionality;
Judgment 4770
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
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.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
In Judgment 4478, considerations 11 and 12, the Tribunal recalled that “[t]he case law confirms that the decision on the type of disciplinary action taken remains in the discretion of the disciplinary authority, as long as the measure is not disproportionate” (see also Judgment 3640, consideration 29), and that “the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, [as] the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability” (see also on this point Judgment 3971, consideration 17). In Judgment 4478, the Tribunal further observed that, although a lack of proportionality must be seen as an error of law warranting the setting aside of a disciplinary measure, “[i]n 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”. However, in Judgment 2699, consideration 15, the Tribunal emphasized that it will accord a high degree of deference to decisions concerning sanctions where the misconduct relates to issues of dishonesty, misrepresentation and a lack of integrity (see also on this point Judgment 4308, consideration 18).
In the present case, the Tribunal notes that the sanction imposed on the complainant, although severe, was not the most serious disciplinary measure provided for in the ICC Staff Rules, which is summary dismissal for serious misconduct. Moreover, the aforementioned provisions specifically placed the complainant under duties of probity and honesty, and it is plain from the submissions and the evidence that his role in the Victims and Witnesses Section of the Registry of the Court in Côte d’Ivoire entailed the obligation to demonstrate irreproachable integrity and to conduct himself with the highest probity when, inter alia, providing proof of expenditure chargeable to the organisation. However, the complainant’s submission of falsified invoices that he himself had acquired for the purpose of providing proof of official expenditure directly undermined the trust essential to his continued relationship with the Organisation. The Tribunal therefore finds that, despite its severity, the sanction imposed was not disproportionate [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699, 3971, 4308, 4478
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; fraud; proportionality;
Consideration 12
Extract:
As regards the fact that the complainant had not been involved in any other incident since he joined the ICC, which could usually constitute a mitigating circumstance, it is clear from the impugned decision that the Registrar of the Court did take this into account. Similarly, the Registrar did consider the complainant’s argument that the sums involved were relatively small and that the offending conduct had not resulted in the organisation incurring any financial loss. However, these mitigating circumstances in fact carried little weight in view of the gravity of the misconduct. Moreover, even if the fact that the complainant had acted, as he submits, at his supervisor’s instigation were to be regarded as a mitigating circumstance, this would not lead to the misconduct being considered less serious.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; fraud; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
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 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s well-settled case law has it that the choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure falls within the discretion of an organization, provided that the discretion be exercised in observance of the rule of law, particularly the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Judgments 4660, consideration 16, 4504, consideration 11, 4247, consideration 7, 3640, consideration 29, and 1984, consideration 7). In reviewing the proportionality of a sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, and it limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. 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 (see Judgment 4504, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein). […]
The evaluation of the weight, if any, of the extenuating circumstances falls within the discretion of the Organization. […]
Apologizing after the events is not a mitigating factor in the absence of concrete actions by the complainant to remedy the difficult situation he created.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1984, 3640, 4247, 4504, 4660
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 24
Extract:
[W]ith regard to the complainant’s [...] plea, that the sanction imposed was unlawful and disproportionate, the Tribunal recalled, in its Judgment 4504, consideration 11, that “[l]ack 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 (see Judgment 4478, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4478, 4504
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4660
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decision to dismiss him summarily without indemnities on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Under settled case law of the Tribunal, “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area” (see, for example, Judgments 4504, consideration 11, 3971, consideration 17, 3944, consideration 12, and 3640, consideration 29).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3971, 4504
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
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 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of a staff member is an interim measure which need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 1927, consideration 5, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension 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. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see aforementioned Judgment 2365, consideration 4(a),
and Judgments 2698, consideration 9, 3037, consideration 9, and 4452, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4452
Keywords:
proportionality; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Judgment 4515
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the conversion of his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for harassment undertaken against him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The power to suspend a staff member under Staff Rule 10.1.3 is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 2365, consideration 4(a), 2698, consideration 9, 3037, consideration 9, and 4452, consideration 7). According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of an official is a provisional measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against him (see Judgments 1927, consideration 5, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis, be justified by the needs of the organisation and be taken with due regard to the principle of proportionality. In order for a suspension measure to be taken, the official must be accused of serious misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4452
Keywords:
discretion; proportionality; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Judgment 4504
134th Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote her from grade P4 to grade P3 for a period of two years.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Regarding the severity of the disciplinary measure, the Tribunal’s case law has it that “[t]he disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area” (see, for example, Judgments 3971, consideration 17, 3953, consideration 14, 3944, consideration 12, and 3640, consideration 29). The question is whether or not, in the instant case, the sanction of demotion from grade P4 to P3 imposed upon the complainant for a period of two years was disproportionate to the misconduct that was established. In reviewing the proportionality of the sanction, the Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability. 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 (see Judgment 4478, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3944, 3971, 4478
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4478
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
The case law confirms that the decision on the type of disciplinary action taken remains in the discretion of the disciplinary authority, as long as the measure is not disproportionate.
“[T]he Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal limits itself to assessing whether the decision falls within the range of acceptability.”
(See Judgment 3971, consideration 17.)
“[I]t 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).”
(See Judgment 2656, consideration 5.)
In her decision, the Deputy Director General considered the proportionality of the sanction in relation to various circumstances, both objectively and subjectively, namely, the nature and gravity of the misconduct involved, the circumstances in which the complainant had made the statements, the limited recipients, the complainant’s long service with a good performance record, and the expression of regrets in his response. The Tribunal notes that the Staff Rule 10.1.1 lists six possible disciplinary measures, and “delayed advancement, for a specific period of time, to the next salary step” is the second lightest disciplinary measure. The complainant’s statements constituted a breach of both Staff Regulations 1.5(a) and 11.1, namely, the obligation on staff members “to conduct themselves at all times in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants” and the duty to avoid any action which “may adversely reflect on the international civil service or which is incompatible with the integrity [...] required by their status”. Having regard to the Deputy Director General’s reasons for the application of the disciplinary measure, the Tribunal concludes that the sanction was not disproportionate.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203, 937, 1445, 2656, 3971
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Judgment 4457
133rd Session, 2022
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.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, although the disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area (see, for example, Judgments 3640, consideration 29, 3927, consideration 13, and 3944, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 3927, 3944
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality;
Consideration 12
Extract:
In this case, the complainant’s misconduct clearly does not meet the criteria of gravity thus identified by the applicable provisions and the case law, especially given various mitigating circumstances from which, as the Appeals Board rightly pointed out in its opinion [...], the complainant should benefit.
Keywords:
mitigating circumstances; proportionality;
Judgment 4456
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
In one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203 at consideration 2, the principle of proportionality was discussed in the context of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. The Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the penalty to be proportionate to the fault and that, in that case, the complainant’s misconduct could not be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The failure of the complainant to discharge her duties in the manner specified in the charges had to be viewed in the context of the chief executive officer of the Organization, Mr R., knowing mostly how those duties were being performed, approving of how those duties were being performed and, at least in some respects, having instructed the complainant to perform them.
[…] The failure of the Secretary-General to pay any regard to Mr R.’s evidence was a serious flaw in the decision to summarily dismiss the complainant. That decision should be set aside.
Keywords:
mitigating circumstances; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4453
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203 at consideration 2, the principle of proportionality was discussed in the context of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of summary dismissal. The Tribunal noted that the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. The Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the penalty to be proportionate to the fault and that, in that case, the complainant’s misconduct could not be evaluated without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4444
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Given the preponderance of the evidence, including the complainant’s own admissions, the serious nature of his misconduct, as well as the fact that in March 2014 and prior to the commencement of the investigation in November 2014, the complainant was the subject of a written reprimand for improperly adding the spouse of a government official to a recruitment short-list, his contention that dismissal was a disproportionate measure is unfounded.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality; summary dismissal;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
