Insubordination (498, 499,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Insubordination
Total judgments found: 16

• Judgment 3166

  
  114th Session, 2013
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  "[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468
  

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2468

  
  99th Session, 2005
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The complainant asserts that his immediate supervisor subjected him to moral harassment. "Undoubtedly, serious problems arose from the tensions between the complainant and his former colleague, who had become his supervisor, but the former's refusal to recognise the authority of the latter largely accounts for a situation which, however regrettable, did not constitute harassment."

  Keywords:

  complainant; definition; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
  

  Considerations 18-19

  Extract:

  The complainant's appointment was terminated. "It may be concluded from all the circumstances of the case that, even though the complainant's conduct towards his supervisor was not what might be expected of an international civil servant and would probably have justified preventive action on the part of the Organization, the reasons given to establish that the complainant's abilities and performance were unsatisfactory did not suffice to justify terminating his appointment for unsatisfactory services.
  The complainant's [...] claim for retroactive reinstatement, with all legal consequences, within the Organization's staff [is well founded]."

  Keywords:

  complainant; conduct; consequence; insubordination; official; organisation's duties; qualifications; reinstatement; right; supervisor; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• 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 1550

  
  81st Session, 1996
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "If the complainant felt that the representative's order was ultra vires the proper course was for him, not just to carry on regardless, but to raise the issue with the representative and, if necessary, refer it through the representative to Headquarters for a ruling. By failing to obey an explicit and unambiguous order from his supervisor he was in breach of his duty under the Staff Regulations, which declare staff to be subject to the authority of the Director. In this instance that authority had been delegated to the representative."

  Keywords:

  conduct; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; due process; insubordination; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1381

  
  78th Session, 1995
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 18 and 20

  Extract:

  During a staff meeting the complainant spoke out on issues of a personal nature. Although he then heeded an order not to raise personal matters at staff meetings, "his subsequent remarks show some defiance, even if they were not intended to threaten; by circulating the text of his statement to the staff he thwarted that ruling; and the language he used in it, and his refusal to withdraw it,only made matters worse. He was thereby guilty of misconduct likely to undermine the authority of his supervisors and to disrupt the functioning of the organization by embroiling other officials in personal disputes. [...] The organization was justified in deciding not to renew the complainant's appointment."

  Keywords:

  conduct; contract; fixed-term; insubordination; non-renewal of contract; organisation's interest; serious misconduct; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1346

  
  77th Session, 1994
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The complainant was dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct. He submits that "the punishment is out of proportion to any offence he may have committed. [...] He is wrong. As the Joint Disciplinary Committee unanimously held, he was guilty of 'wilful and repeated insubordination', had never since shown 'the slightest contrition or change of mind' and had offered 'unacceptable explanations for his behaviour'. The conclusion is that in the circumstances there was nothing disproportionate about the sanction."

  Keywords:

  advisory body; advisory opinion; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; insubordination; misconduct; proportionality; staff member's duties;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. The complainant does not succeed "in his contention that Interpol's real intent was to abolish his post as system programmer and replace it with one for an operations technician. There is no evidence to bear that out. Even if the organization did mean to reform its computer service, that afforded no grounds for the complainant's disobedience let alone for supposing, as he makes out, that such abolition prompted his dismissal."

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; insubordination; lack of evidence; organisation's interest; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1085

  
  70th Session, 1991
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Summary

  Extract:

  The complainant, Head of Interpol's Accounting Service, had his advancement deferred by six months for failing to reply to his supervisors' requests for information about an discrepancy in the accounts. The Tribunal found the measure warranted as he was guilty of misconduct for failing to comply with his duty under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; increment withheld; insubordination; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1030

  
  69th Session, 1990
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Summary

  Extract:

  The complainant was dismissed for misconduct. The organization charged him with refusal to perform duties, refusal to obey instructions and sending letters to Indian government officials with the intention of damaging the organization's reputation. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the charges are substantially true.

  Keywords:

  conduct; independence; insubordination; member state; misconduct; official; organisation's reputation; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 512

  
  49th Session, 1982
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  According to Judgment No. 247, "to bring insubordination within the concept of unsatisfactory service - and to with hold an increment on that account - two conditions must be fulfilled. The positive condition is that it must be established that the insubordination did in the particular case affect the quality of the officer's service. The negative condition is that the insubordination must not in the particular case give rise to a dispute."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 247
  

  Keywords:

  condition; increment withheld; insubordination; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 349

  
  40th Session, 1978
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 32

  Extract:

  The complainant was summarily dismissed for disrespectful conduct. His dismissal was out of proportion with the offence. "The Tribunal will not order the reinstatement of the complainant. This could create a difficult situation [...] for which the complainant's abrasive conduct would be partly to blame." Compensation must be substantial: he had indefinite employment in an excellent post and suffered serious economic losses from the loss of employment. "The Tribunal must however take account of the fact that while the complainant's employment with the organisation might have lasted for the rest of his working life, [he was thirty years of age at the time.] There is a risk that a man of his temperament might sooner or later have given just cause for dismissal."

  Keywords:

  amount; conduct; contract; insubordination; material damages; misconduct; permanent appointment; proportionality; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  The direct superior was a wage bargainer in meetings on conditions of work. "Things can be said in free negotiations about conditions of work in a manner which cannot be used in answer to an order which has to be obeyed. A negotiator does not need to be armed with disciplinary sanctions; he is as free as any other individual to break off discussions with anyone whose manner he finds intolerable. It is because a superior officer cannot break off relations with his subordinates that sanctions against disrespect have to be provided."

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; insubordination; supervisor;
  

  Consideration 24

  Extract:

  The complainant's attitude and expressions were interpreted as showing a degree of disrespect to his direct superior, who had not however made any rebuke on earlier occasions and who found himself as negotiator in confrontation with the complainant in meetings on working conditions. "[T]he Tribunal concludes that any offence that was given did not deserve more than a reprimand." The selection of the appropriate penalty is a discretionary one, but this discretion must be exercised subject to the principle of proportionality. "[T]he penalty of summary dismissal was out of proportion to any offence committed."

  Keywords:

  conduct; disciplinary measure; discretion; insubordination; misconduct; proportionality; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 318

  
  39th Session, 1977
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "The main grounds for the impugned decision are that the complainant, who would brook no challenge to his views, proved unable to obey his supervisor's instructions and adapt to the methods of the organization. It is clear from the dossier that those grounds are factually correct and are not tainted with any of the flaws [...] which would entitle the Tribunal to interfere."

  Keywords:

  insubordination; judicial review; probationary period; termination of employment; working relations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 291

  
  38th Session, 1977
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "Supposing that [the] decision were indeed based on action taken by the complainant [...] when he sent his superior a letter couched in highly improper language which could not be tolerated from [a] subordinate, the Tribunal would not be entitled to quash a decision to remove from the staff of the organisation one whose attitude was on several occasions plainly at odds with the basic duties of [an] international official. In any event such an attitude would in law warrant refusing the complainant a further appointment."

  Keywords:

  conduct; contract; fitness for international civil service; fixed-term; grounds; insubordination; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 247

  
  33rd Session, 1974
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  In this case, there was a substantial matter in dispute. "The complainant did not dispute the commission of an act because he was not charged with the commission of an act; but being charged with an insubordinate attitude, he disputed that he owed a duty of subordination."

  Keywords:

  conduct; insubordination; staff member's duties; supervisor;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  If the complainant had been accused of making a charge which he knew to be false, the matter would have fallen within the scope of disciplinary measures. "If it is not so alleged, then it must be open to one official, when making a complaint about another, whether his superior or not, to state what he honestly believes without fear of its being treated as insubordination."

  Keywords:

  conduct; insubordination; staff member's duties; supervisor; working relations;
  

  Consideration 21

  Extract:

  The Director General erred in law in treating the complainant's attitude towards an official as unsatisfactory service; he erred in law in concluding that at the material time, this official was the complainant's superior or supervisor; in concluding that the complainant was guilty of insubordination, he drew a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts. "The decision [...] is quashed; the complainant [shall be] paid the increment due to him [...] with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum."

  Keywords:

  amount; conduct; flaw; increment withheld; insubordination; interest on damages; material damages; mistaken conclusion; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
  

  Considerations 15, 16 and 21

  Extract:

  Having been accused of insubordination, the complainant questioned the existence of a duty of subordination. "Accordingly, the offence, if any, of the complainant was an offence against discipline and the Director-General erred in dealing with it as a matter of unsatisfactory service." The Director-General "erred in law in treating the complainant's attitude towards [another official] as unsatisfactory service."

  Keywords:

  complainant; conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "Unsatisfactory conduct may or may not affect the quality of the service given. It would be easy to pick out from the [...] examples of misconduct [enumerated in the Regulations] a number which could not affect the service at all. It would also be easy to imagine acts of insubordination or pieces of impertinence which would not affect the service given".

  Keywords:

  conduct; insubordination; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 87

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

  Consideration 4 (I)

  Extract:

  "In the light of the terms actually used by the complainant, it cannot be asserted that in presenting this demand he was refusing to follow the procedure legally applicable to relations with the staff; at the most he was challenging its effectiveness. Furthermore, without it being necessary to consider whether this demand in itself implied some lack of the proper discretion which the complainant was bound to observe towards the Director-General, the fact that he made it did not in any case amount to an act of insubordination or impertinence."

  Keywords:

  duty of discretion; insubordination; staff claim; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 63

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

  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;