Disciplinary body (911,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Disciplinary body
Total judgments found: 5

• 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 8

  Extract:

  [T]he Joint Disciplinary Committee’s opinion [...] shows that, when establishing the existence of particular facts and assessing the seriousness of the misconduct with which the complainant was charged, the Committee relied to a large extent on video footage of the incident [...] taken by a closed-circuit camera installed at the security post. The Committee used that footage to assess the complainant’s behaviour for almost two minutes before the unfortunate shot was fired, during which, according to the Committee, he stood by while his colleague carelessly handled the weapon that he had just given him. In the first place, this contradicted the account that the complainant gave in memoranda addressed to the Organization’s senior management and during his hearing and, in the second place, showed that he had failed to appreciate the danger of the situation.
  However, it is clear from the details contained in the Committee’s opinion that the video footage was watched by only two of the three members of the Committee, who did so [...] between the Committee’s meetings. The Tribunal has already ruled in a similar case that such a practice is irregular in its very principle. Making clear that each member of a collegiate body has an individual responsibility to be fully engaged in the fact-finding process in the case before it, which involves the assessment of the evidence of those facts in terms of its admissibility, reliability, accuracy, relevance and weight, the Tribunal held that the whole panel of such a body is required to consider that evidence and that this responsibility cannot be delegated to one or more of its members (see Judgment 3272, consideration 13). This holding, which was applied to a joint appeals body, must also apply to a collegiate body dealing with disciplinary matters such as Interpol’s Joint Disciplinary Committee. The Tribunal sees no reason here to depart from the case law in question, which seems to it to be salutary, since it is unacceptable for a member of an administrative committee to deliberate on a case without having examined for herself or himself a piece of evidence examined by the other members – which is thereby placed, by definition, in the file of that case – especially if, as in the present case, that committee actually uses the piece of evidence in question as a foundation for its opinion. The procedure followed was therefore flawed on that account.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3272
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; due process; evidence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4659

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant argues that, in breach of Staff Rule 10.3.5(2), the opinion of the Joint Disciplinary Committee was not signed by its members.
  The Tribunal observes that the consultative opinion of the Joint Disciplinary Committee officially filed by the Organization has not been signed, nor does it indicate the date on which it was delivered. When questioned on this point, Interpol acknowledged that the consultative opinion had not been signed but confirmed that the opinion “was sent by email [...] by one of the members of the Committee with a copy to the Chairman and the other members of the Committee”, and it produced a copy of the email to which the opinion had been attached.
  The Tribunal points out that Staff Rule 10.3.5(2) provides expressly that “[t]he Chairman of the relevant Joint Committee shall sign the consultative opinion”. It is plain that this formality was not observed, and Interpol’s explanations clearly do not change that fact. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that the failure to comply with this requirement, the purpose of which is to guarantee the authenticity of the Committee’s opinion, constitutes a substantial flaw. That finding particularly applies to disciplinary proceedings.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; signature;
  

  
  
  

• 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 10

  Extract:

  Inasmuch as the Appeal Board’s role in an internal appeal is an advisory one, the Director General may depart from its recommendations provided that she or he must state clear and cogent reasons for doing so (see, for example, Judgment 2699, consideration 24).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body; disciplinary measure; final decision; motivation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4497

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  Under Staff Regulation 2 5.20, the JADB is comprised of a person appointed by the Administration, a person appointed by the Staff Association and a third person chosen and agreed to by those two. Fairly clearly, it is intended to be a representative body whose members may well bring a range of divergent thoughts and opinions to a consideration of the conduct of the staff member concerned and thus enhance the disciplinary process by providing input to the Director General.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1763

  
  85th Session, 1998
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 15 and 17

  Extract:

  The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Director of the Division of Personnel [...] was both the chairman of the Disciplinary Board and the head of the department conducting the initial investigation. That the Director of the Division of Personnel should be chairman of the Board is required by paragraph 13(a) of section 13, Part II, of the Agency's Administrative Manual and does not constitute a procedural flaw, but does give rise to a situation in which there is a grave danger of an actual breach of procedural fairness. That is what in fact occurred. As the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the Director had to refrain from personal involvement in the investigation. He must not be both judge and policeman. That, however, is what happened on at least one occasion. [...] This constitutes a serious breach of due process. [...] As chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board, the Director of the Division of Personnel had a duty to be and to appear to be impartial."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 13(A) OF SECTION 13, PART II, OF IAEA'S ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL
  
  

  Keywords:

  bias; conflict of interest; disciplinary body; disciplinary procedure; due process; inquiry; investigation; investigative body; procedural flaw;