Investigation (860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Investigation
Total judgments found: 180
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4861
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the alleged failure to investigate his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; investigation;
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 25
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that any right against self-incrimination was, in any event, not infringed in the present case, even if it were to be accepted that this right – which mainly concerns criminal proceedings - is applicable also in administrative proceedings. The persons subject to investigation have a duty to cooperate with the investigation, and may be sanctioned if they fail to do so. Nonetheless, the duty to cooperate does not impede the exercise of the right to silence, if there be one, of the persons concerned, insofar as their answers might lead to charges against them. The above-quoted UNAIDS rules encompass the duty to participate generally in interviews, to provide documents, to list persons who might be interviewed as witnesses, and, at least, the duty not to obstruct the expeditious carrying out of the investigation. Inviting the complainant to an interview did not necessarily imply an obligation to answer questions, which might incriminate him. The file contains persuasive evidence that the complainant infringed his duty to cooperate, by refusing to be interviewed and by attempting to obstruct the conclusion of the proceedings.
Keywords:
investigation; staff member's duties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; investigation; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
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 25
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that any right against self-incrimination was, in any event, not infringed in the present case, even if it were to be accepted that this right – which mainly concerns criminal proceedings - is applicable also in administrative proceedings. The persons subject to investigation have a duty to cooperate with the investigation, and may be sanctioned if they fail to do so. Nonetheless, the duty to cooperate does not impede the exercise of the right to silence, if there be one, of the persons concerned, insofar as their answers might lead to charges against them. The above-quoted UNAIDS rules encompass the duty to participate generally in interviews, to provide documents, to list persons who might be interviewed as witnesses, and, at least, the duty not to obstruct the expeditious carrying out of the investigation. Inviting the complainant to an interview did not necessarily imply an obligation to answer questions, which might incriminate her. The file contains persuasive evidence that the complainant infringed her duty to cooperate, by refusing to be interviewed and by attempting to obstruct the conclusion of the proceedings.
Keywords:
investigation; staff member's duties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; investigation; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
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 14
Extract:
In its well-reasoned opinion, the Committee correctly concluded (and the Director-General confirmed in the impugned decision) that due process was observed during the OIGI’s investigation, noting that the complainant had been interviewed and given the opportunity to test the evidence. This is apparent from the information contained in consideration 1 of this judgment. The Committee also concluded, correctly in the Tribunal’s view, and as the Director-General accepted in the impugned decision, the fact that OIGI did not interview persons whom the complainant mentioned during his interview, notably, the two brothers or the CEO of the Political Party, did not violate due process because the complainant had not shown that not interviewing them caused him prejudice.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; investigation; prejudice; witness;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to 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 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; counsel; disclosure of evidence; due process; flaw; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 11
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 (see, for example, Judgment 4313, consideration 8). However, the complainant asks the Tribunal not to refer the matter back to IOM, but to award her material and moral damages. In view of this and the time that has elapsed, the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to refer the case back to IOM.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4313
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; damages; flaw; investigation; material damages; moral damages; remand;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[The complainant is] (relying on consideration 15 of Judgment 2786) to the effect that it was not open to the Federation to justify a decision by conducting further enquiries after the internal appeal proceedings have been concluded since it breached the right to be heard and renders the appeal proceedings futile […] [T]he Tribunal’s statement in consideration 15 of Judgment 2786 is not applicable to the case at hand since, contrary to the facts underlying Judgment 2786, the scope of the investigation of the present case did not change.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
internal procedure; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of bias, conflict of interest and breach of impartiality on the part of the investigator, as the Appeals Commission in effect found, the allegation could not be proved on the mere basis that the same investigator had already concluded in his initial investigative report that he (the complainant) was culpable for sexual harassment. As the case law states, such allegation must be substantiated and based on specific facts (see, for example, Judgment 4711, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest; impartiality; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[A]part from his mere assertion that the investigator was biased because he had refused to incorporate changes he (the complainant) had made in his prior witness statement, the complainant, who, according to the case law stated, for example, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4261, bears the burden of proof, does not explain how bias is proven on that basis.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; investigation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he case law states that 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, and, for that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 4764, consideration 7). Additionally, the Tribunal will not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there is manifest error (see, for example, Judgment 4444, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4444, 4764
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; judicial review;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[H]aving reviewed the applicable rules, the practice of the United Nations and the Tribunal’s case law, particularly stated in consideration 6 of Judgment 4313, the Federation had a legitimate interest [to launch a second investigation and disciplinary process] to correct the initial flawed process (the non-disclosure of the documents to the complainant) and to conclude the process on a proper legal basis and document the outcome on the complainant’s personnel file for its future employment decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4313
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; investigation; personal file;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Regarding an organization’s duties where harassment complaints are made, the Tribunal has stated, for example, in consideration 3 of Judgment 4344, that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members and that given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself. It further stated that the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context and that upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Moreover, a person who makes a harassment complaint has a duty to substantiate it. The Tribunal’s case law also states that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4344
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; investigation; organisation's duties;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
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.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant […] submits that there was procedural irregularity because the [the Office of Internal Oversight Services]’s decision to interview him just one day after he was notified of its investigation into the allegation of fraud with no choice of a later date despite the seriousness of the allegations, was biased. According to paragraph 50 of the Investigation Guidelines, IOS conducts interviews to give a person who is interviewed an opportunity to be heard and to elicit information about the matter under investigation. Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Guidelines, which essentially sets out the interview procedure, does not provide any timeframe within which an interviewee shall be notified that she or he is invited to an interview, but it indicates that she or he should be notified in advance. The one day’s notice the complainant was given is understandable in a case of this nature. Moreover, as UNIDO points out, the complainant did not object to being notified at short notice, and, pursuant to paragraph 53 of the Investigation Guidelines, the EIO authorized an observer to be present at the interview at his request. The complainant […] when asked whether he had any objections or comments concerning how the interview was conducted, he replied, “No, absolutely not”. The Tribunal finds that […] the decision to interview the complainant one day after he was notified of the allegation of fraud against him […] reflect[s] bias, as the complainant alleges.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Judgment 4776
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 close his harassment complaint after a preliminary review.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant seeks moral damages for reasons including the failure to carry out a formal investigation, the long duration of the preliminary investigation, the effect of the harassment and abuse of authority on his health, his professional career, reputation and personal life. This last-mentioned claim is based on the premise that he was the subject of harassment and abuse of authority. This is untested and unproved. As to the other aspects of his claim for moral damages, their foundation is simply asserted and not proved. This is insufficient (see, for example, Judgment 4644, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4644
Keywords:
investigation; moral damages;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; investigation; investigation report;
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 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the cross-examination of witnesses is not a requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings, provided that due process be ensured by other means. In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that due process was respected, despite the fact that the complainant had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Indeed, he was informed of the precise allegations made against him and was provided with the verbatim records of the statements of the witnesses. He was thus able to confront and test the evidence, even though he was not present when the statements were made and was not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the investigation relied not only on the statements rendered by three witnesses, but also on documentary evidence.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4764
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal said, in relation to both the opinion of an internal appeals body and an investigative body established by the rules of the organization concerned, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12:
“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).”
It is true that the [Global Board of Appeal] did not hear the witnesses in the present case. It did, however, review a large amount of documentary material, including the records of interviews, and made findings of fact based on this material. The opinion of the [Global Board of Appeal] is, on some relevant matters, balanced and considered and has to be given the deference spoken of in the Tribunal’s case law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; internal appeal; investigation;
Judgment 4756
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into his allegation of breach of confidentiality and to deny his request for compensation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4754
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; deference; harassment; investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; complaint dismissed; flaw; identical facts; investigation; joinder; personal file;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Ordinarily, a document addressing a staff member’s performance or conduct can, appropriately, be placed on the staff member’s personnel file. However, if the document is legally flawed, an order could be made requiring its removal (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 8). In the present case, the letter of 17 December 2020 might arguably be legally flawed, if there was a flawed process of investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997
Keywords:
administrative decision; conduct; flaw; investigation; order; personal file;
Judgment 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal finds that [the Office of the Inspector General] conducted a thorough review of the voluminous documentation submitted by the complainant and a detailed analysis of her allegations. [The Office of the Inspector General]’s conclusion that the complainant’s harassment complaint should be closed was based on the results of its preliminary assessment that “there was no prima facie case of harassment, abuse of authority, retaliation or other misconduct”. In determining that the complaint should be closed for a lack of a prima facie case, [the Office of the Inspector General] acted within its authority and fully in line with the provisions of the [the Office of the Inspector General] Investigation Guidelines […].
Keywords:
investigation; investigative body; rules of the organisation;
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 4691
136th Session, 2023
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[B]y framing the alleged harassing conduct involving an abuse of authority in the narrow way it did […] together with its consideration of specific issues or events in isolation, it is more likely than not that the OIG failed to consider whether the conduct as a whole involved an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2930, consideration 3) or, putting it slightly differently, whether the cumulative effect of the conduct could be reviewed as harassment and, specifically, an abuse of authority (see Judgment 4347, consideration 30).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2930, 4347
Keywords:
abuse of power; harassment; investigation;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant is entitled to moral damages for the moral injury he undoubtedly suffered as a result of the unlawful peremptory rejection of his complaint of harassment and particularly, abuse of authority and retribution about which, at this time, he obviously felt extremely strongly.
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; moral damages;
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 3
Extract:
As to the argument that the persons entrusted with the investigation are in a conflict of interest because they are subject to the hierarchical authority of the person accused of harassment (i.e. the Director-General), the Tribunal recalls its case law which states it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see Judgment 4240, consideration 10). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). An allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden to prove a conflict of interest (see Judgments 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The mere fact that the staff members entrusted with an investigation are ordinarily under the authority of the Director- General is not a reasonable ground to call their impartiality into question. In the present case, there is no evidence that they had received any instructions from the Director-General (see Judgment 4243, consideration 9). The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence about the existence of a conflict of interest, which is merely hypothetical and not grounded on specific facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958, 4240, 4243, 4616, 4617
Keywords:
conflict of interest; investigation; investigative body;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint dismissed; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4607
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegation that the opening of an investigation against her involved abuse of authority and the decision not to investigate her allegations against the Acting Director of the Internal Oversight Division.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[The complainant] has no enforceable legal interest in the fate of her allegation of misconduct against the Acting Director IOD which can be vindicated by orders of the Tribunal. The subject matter, namely the decision not to open an investigation on the alleged misconduct and abuse of authority by the Acting Director IOD, does not concern non-observance of the terms of her appointment or relevant non-observance of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as provided for in Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute (see Judgment 4145, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4145
Keywords:
cause of action; investigation; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 4601
135th Session, 2023
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him after an internal complaint of harassment was made against him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he WTO’s assertion that those complaints did not lead to a full or thorough examination of the situation at the time because the procedure for dealing with harassment complaints was deficient is clearly not an argument capable of justifying that reversal. First, even assuming that the procedure at the time was inadequate, that cannot be relied on by the WTO since the Tribunal has consistently stated that international organisations are required to investigate accusations in this area and to provide protection for persons who claim they are the victims of harassment (see Judgments 2706, consideration 5, and 2552, consideration 3) and also to ensure that their investigative and internal appeal bodies for this purpose are functioning properly (see Judgments 3314, consideration 14, and 3069, consideration 12), these obligations being are part of a more general duty owed by those organisations to provide a safe and adequate environment for their staff, free from physical and psychological risk (see Judgments 4299, consideration 4, and 4171, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2706, 3069, 3314, 4171, 4299
Keywords:
investigation; organisation's duties;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
