|
|
 |
|
|
Report (91,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Report
Total judgments found: 69
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that the redacted investigation report was not sent to the complainant until after the JAB had made a recommendation to that effect in its report [...].
[...]
In those circumstances, [...] the fact that the complainant did not receive the investigation report until she was informed of the President’s final decision resulted in her being deprived of the opportunity to challenge the findings of the investigation effectively during the appeal proceedings before the JAB.
[T]he Tribunal must conclude that the procedure followed before the JAB was also unlawful in that the JAB was not provided with all the evidence which would have enabled it to give a fully informed decision on the internal appeal before it (see, to that effect, Judgment 1372, consideration 11). In consequence, the complainant was deprived of the right to have her internal appeal properly examined (on the obligation of any international organisation to ensure that the rules are correctly applied and due process followed, see, inter alia, Judgments 2219, 2654, 2700 and 3065).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1372, 2219, 2654, 2700, 3065
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry; internal procedure; report;
Judgment 4210
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The fourth argument is that there had been procedural irregularities attending the ABCC’s consideration of his case on 24 May 2017 and 11 December 2017. This is founded on the fact that all members of the ABCC did not sign the minutes of the May and December 2017 meetings. The complainant does not point to any case law or staff rule or regulation that requires all members to sign. Moreover the mere fact that all members did not sign does not even arguably sustain an inference that the decisions actually made were not unanimous (see, for example, Judgments 1763, consideration 13, and 810, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1763
Keywords:
formal flaw; formal requirements; internal appeals body; report; signature;
Judgment 4120
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to communicate to him an investigation report concerning the payment of school fees to another employee.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; education expenses; report; staff representative;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
internal appeals body; motivation; report;
Judgment 3934
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to transfer him and not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The impugned decision of 13 August 2014 is based on the opinion delivered by the Appeals Board, which the Director-General simply endorsed. That decision is hence tainted by the same error of law (for similar cases, see Judgments 2742, under 40, 2892, under 14, and 3490, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2892, 3490
Keywords:
final decision; internal appeals body; mistake of law; report;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
It is [...] for the Director-General to issue the final decision accepting or rejecting the JAB’s recommendation(s). The Director-General’s cover email of 3 May 2016 under which the JAB’s report was communicated to the complainant was the final decision which the complainant should have impugned. However, although the complainant purports to challenge the JAB’s report, the complaint is receivable as the Tribunal treats it as impugning the final decision of 3 May 2016 (see, for example, Judgment 3887, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3887
Keywords:
final decision; impugned decision; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3908
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal notes, at the outset, that the Appeals Board’s report is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational and the recommendations made respectfully. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3608
121st Session, 2016
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final administrative decision of the Director General by which he dismissed her internal appeal against the decision not to pay her moral damages for harassment and for injury to her dignity and reputation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The report of the JAB manifests a comprehensive and thoughtful consideration and evaluation of the evidence and whether any of the conduct about which the complainant is aggrieved can be characterised as harassment, a breach of the IAEA’s duty of care or as otherwise unlawful. It is now settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal that in some circumstances reports of internal appeal bodies warrant “considerable deference” (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3400, consideration 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400
Keywords:
internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3512
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a warning letter from his reporting officer, warning him that he was at risk of receiving markings of less than "good" in his forthcoming staff report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; report;
Judgment 3511
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the third version of his staff report for 2002-2003.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; performance evaluation; report;
Judgment 3489
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision that his 2010 Performance Review Report shall be redone from the beginning and that a decision regarding an amendment to his contract extension from three to five years will be contingent on the outcome of the new Report.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; contract; decision quashed; extension of contract; performance evaluation; report;
Judgment 3487
120th Session, 2015
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to allow a “Note for the File” to remain on his personal file.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation; personal file; report;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
In its detailed report, the JAAB clearly referred to the complainant’s numerous submissions and allegations and demonstrated in its findings and conclusions that it had indeed understood and considered all the evidence before it, but that it simply found no flaw in the investigation procedure nor in the conclusion that no harassment had occurred. The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence to show that the JAAB’s findings, or the procedure, suffered any material flaw. “Consistent case law holds that ‘harassment and mobbing do not require malice or intent, but that behaviour cannot be considered as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for it’ […]. The complainant did not show that the [JAAB’s] finding and conclusions involved any reviewable error. The situations and events that she cites as examples of mobbing and harassment cannot be considered as such because there is a reasonable explanation for each example.” (See Judgment 3192, under 15.) It is clear from the submissions of both parties, that the situations which the complainant perceived as harassment were quite reasonably explained by the managerial necessities of the Organization. Essentially, the conflict that resulted in the allegations of harassment lay in the poor working relationships that existed between the complainant and other members of the ILO/AIDS team.
[...]
[T]he Tribunal concludes that the complainant has failed to establish that harassment has occurred and finds that there was no manifest error in the JAAB’s weighing of the evidence. The working relations were tense, but not due to misconduct or abnormal behaviour by the complainant’s superiors. It should be noted that the situation could have been avoided if management had been more sensitive to the complainant’s personal needs and history when dealing with her requests and formulating their replies. However, the Tribunal recognises that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests, and therefore it cannot declare that any breach of care has occurred (see for example Judgments 2587, under 10, and 3192, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587, 3192
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeals body; report;
Judgment 3290
116th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of the complainant's post for lack of financial resources, the reassignment process was organized but was ultimately unsuccessful in finding the complainant another post.
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2315, under 29, the Tribunal held that the need for a personnel advisory panel to be free to discuss relevant matters is not an acceptable basis for a claim of confidentiality “[i]n a decisionmaking process which is subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal […]”. This is equally applicable to a reassignment process that is also subject to internal review and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If there are aspects of the report pertaining to confidential third party information, the report can be redacted to exclude this information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; decision-maker; judicial review; reassignment; report;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2744
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; period; procedure before the tribunal; publication; report; right;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
