|
|
 |
|
|
Retaliation (711,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Retaliation
Total judgments found: 15
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant alleges retaliation, but her allegation is generic and unsubstantiated. A mere assumption or suspicion of retaliation does not meet the requisite standard of proof, the onus of which is borne by the complainant (see Judgments 4391, consideration 13, and 4363, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4363, 4391
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4357, consideration 9) and he has not done so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4357
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4804
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his appeal seeking, in the main, moral damages for breach of confidentiality and defamation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that staff members have a right to bring complaints before the Tribunal and there should be no negative implications arising from the exercise of that right.
Keywords:
complaint; judicial review; retaliation;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the decision not to promote him was a hidden disciplinary sanction against him because he was a staff representative appointed by the Central Staff Committee as a member of the General Advisory Committee, to discourage employees from being staff representatives, is unfounded. The complainant provides no evidence, as against conjecture, to prove a nexus between the non-promotion decision and this allegation or from which it may be inferred that the decision was retaliatory (see, for example, Judgment 2907, under 23) or was actuated by prejudice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2907
Keywords:
hidden disciplinary measure; promotion; retaliation; staff representative;
Judgment 4363
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of retaliation, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; retaliation;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n Judgment 4238, consideration 5, the Tribunal recently recalled its case law which has consistently stated that it is incumbent on the complainant to establish that actions or conduct complained of were retaliatory.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4238
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4357
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4261, consideration 10) [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
Keywords:
burden of proof; retaliation;
Judgment 4286
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; institutional harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The fact that a managerial decision was taken in the interests of the service and under time pressure is not inherently incompatible with it also being an act of retaliation. Very often a managerial decision involves choices between courses of action. The adoption of a course of action because it is in the interests of the service, may also be intended, at least in part, as an act of retaliation.
Keywords:
organisation's interest; retaliation;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] stated, in Judgment 3748, consideration 6, for example, that the complainant must establish that an action or conduct complained of was retaliatory, although it can be accepted that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice can be inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3748
Keywords:
retaliation;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; post description; retaliation;
Judgment 4005
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he fact of reporting unsatisfactory conduct may be relevant in a harassment case alleging retaliation.
Keywords:
harassment; retaliation;
Judgment 3748
123rd Session, 2017
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Global Fund’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment allegedly made to her by the Chief Procurement Officer.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is incumbent on the complainant to establish that the actions or conduct complained of was retaliatory (see Judgment 3415, consideration 11), though it can be accepted that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice can be inferred from surrounding circumstances (see Judgment 1775, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3415
Keywords:
organisation's interest; personal prejudice; retaliation;
Judgment 3142
113th Session, 2012
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
Quite apart from the wrongful linking of the renewal of the complainant’s contract to the outcome of her complaint of harassment, the report of the ad hoc board did not justify the course taken. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant withdrew any of the specific claims made by her on 25 July 2009 and, as already noted, some of those claims were capable of being categorised as sexual harassment. Moreover, the board did not find that any of the claims were false. Further, although the board stated that it had come to the conclusion in its interview with the complainant that she “was withdrawing her claims of sexual harassment”, its ultimate conclusion was that “she did not pursue” these claims, a course which is entirely explicable in view of the absence of any reference to “sexual harassment” in the Terms of Reference. So far as concerns the claim of harassment generally, the Secretary-General committed an error of law in treating the situation as “serious” on the basis that there had been a finding that harassment had not occurred. It is entirely proper to treat as serious a situation where it is subsequently found that an allegation of harassment has no factual basis. In that situation, there has been a false accusation. In the present case, the ad hoc board found that there was a factual basis to the complainant’s claim, albeit without identifying the precise conduct involved. It found that there had been no harassment solely on the basis that the complainant’s supervisor neither knew nor ought to have known that his conduct – conduct that the Secretary-General said that he deplored – was unwelcome. And it did so simply on the basis that she had not told him so. Where behaviour is such as to satisfy all the elements in the definition of “harassment”, save knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, it is entirely proper for a staff member to make a claim of harassment. And a decision not to renew that staff member’s contract on the ground that a complaint of harassment, although properly made, was not sustained because the perpetrator neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known his conduct was unwelcome gives rise to an inference of retaliation. More particularly is that so where, as here, the contract of the person who engaged in the conduct concerned was renewed quite independently of the outcome of the investigation and the only real criticism that could be made of the person whose contract was not renewed was that she did not make her feelings known and did not make an “earlier attempt to resolve difficulties [...] in a less confrontational manner”.
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; retaliation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; retaliation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 86
Extract:
[T]here can be no doubt that the decision of 3 November 2006 was taken in retaliation for her having exercised her right to seek review of the decision of 25 October and for having pursued her claims of harassment. So much is clear both from the Secretary-General’s letter of 3 November 2006 and the submissions filed in WMO’s reply. Retaliation on this basis is no different from retaliation for pursuing an internal appeal which, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 2540, under 27, “is a gross abuse of power warranting an award of substantial exemplary damages”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2540
Keywords:
abuse of power; exemplary damages; harassment; internal appeal; misuse of authority; retaliation;
|
|
|
|
|
