Misconduct (392, 397, 498, 499, 507, 210, 263, 389, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396, 398, 843, 969, 394, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 942, 514, 817, 908, 941, 943, 509, 901, 909, 910, 911, 912, 917, 642, 679, 820, 827, 652, 728, 860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Misconduct
Total judgments found: 161

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• Judgment 4011

  
  126th Session, 2018
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3972

  
  125th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3969

  
  125th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the EPO’s decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; downgrading; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3968

  
  125th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of downgrading for serious misconduct, and the decision not to initiate an investigation into her allegations of institutional harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; downgrading; misconduct; staff representative;
  

  Considerations 26 and 27

  Extract:

  The Tribunal concludes the complainant acted carelessly, with regard to a very sensitive subject, conscious of the probability that her statement would highly offend other staff members and would create great unrest among colleagues, damaging the work environment. The Tribunal observes the complainant’s actions were serious and wrong and cannot be justified by an alleged good purpose.
  [T]aking into account the discretion enjoyed by the disciplinary authority and, in particular, the complainant’s refusal to apologize to Mr A. and the serious consequences of that behaviour on Mr A.’s health, the Tribunal finds that the contested disciplinary measure is not disproportionate and that the complainant’s twentieth complaint must also be dismissed (see Judgment 3640, under 29).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; misconduct; proportionality;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3964

  
  125th Session, 2018
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The overarching legal principles in a case such as the present have recently been discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3862, consideration 20. The Tribunal observed: “the executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow the recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3649, 3862
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; duty to substantiate decision; final decision; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  It is [...] well settled that the ‘Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact’ (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  In cases of found misconduct based on allegations of fraud resulting in dismissal, the Tribunal has adopted the approach, in order to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could have been made, that it “will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter [involving allegations of fraud or similar conduct]. It will dismiss the complaint if there is a set of precise and concurring presumptions of the complainant’s guilt” (Judgment 3297, consideration 8, and, also more recently, Judgment 3757, consideration 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3757
  

  Keywords:

  fraud; misconduct; standard of proof; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [I]t is not for the Tribunal to assume the role of fact finder and determine, itself, whether the case is made out that the complainant was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Rather the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether “a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made by the primary trier of fact”, in this case the President.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; investigation; judicial review; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3888

  
  124th Session, 2017
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her with immediate effect for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3887

  
  124th Session, 2017
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him, for misconduct, with immediate effect and with reduction of pension entitlements.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The complainant’s refusal to fulfill his obligations with regard to his work as an examiner is well-established. However, the President’s decision to dismiss the complainant under Article 93(2)(f) of the Service Regulations is vitiated by the fact that neither the President, nor the Disciplinary Committee could have made a proper assessment of the allegations without taking into account whether the complainant acted intentionally, and in control of his faculties, or if the complainant suffered from a mental illness that prevented him from behaving in accordance with his obligations as a permanent employee.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; duty of care; health reasons; intention of parties; misconduct; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; health reasons; misconduct;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  [I]n the absence of an expert psychiatric opinion that the complainant was not suffering from a psychiatric illness, it would be unlawful for the President to dismiss the complainant for misconduct, which, in this case, involves intentional behaviour, though he plainly could for unsatisfactory service.

  Keywords:

  health reasons; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3882

  
  124th Session, 2017
  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 with immediate effect for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3881

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him sick leave after his dismissal for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; misconduct; sick leave; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3880

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  For a finding of misconduct to withstand scrutiny, each of the elements of the alleged misconduct must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As a starting point, in the case of an alleged curfew violation, the organization bears the burden of proving the existence of the curfew that was allegedly violated and that the curfew applied to the staff member. In the present case, it is clear that there were three curfews in place [...] at the material time, although one was only in force intermittently. The key issue was whether the curfew the complainant allegedly violated applied to him. The resolution of this issue is contingent on first establishing which curfew it is that the complainant allegedly breached. Given the confusion and the shifting that occurred in relation to the specific curfew allegedly breached, this was not established. Based on the evidence, there is a case to be made that the MONUC curfew did not apply to the complainant. There is also a case to be made that the UNDSS curfew did apply to the complainant. In these circumstances a finding of misconduct could not properly be made.

  Keywords:

  misconduct;
  

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  It is “well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed” (Judgment 3649, under 14). It is also well established that a staff member accused of misconduct is presumed to be innocent (Judgment 2879, under 11) and is to be given the benefit of the doubt (Judgment 2849, under 16). It is observed that the FAO did not cite nor is there any support in the case law for its position before the Appeals Committee that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard did not apply in this case. Moreover, it conflates two distinct parts of the misconduct process: the finding of misconduct (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) and the subsequent imposition of an appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
  Based on a reading of the Appeals Committee’s report and the Director-General’s impugned decision, it appears that in each instance the standard of proof applied was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct is a far less onerous evidentiary burden than the requisite “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The application of the incorrect standard of proof is a fundamental error of law and requires, on this ground alone, that the impugned decision be set aside.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2849, 2879, 3649
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3872

  
  124th Session, 2017
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he Director-General concluded that, as a security guard, the complainant should not have used the privileged access keys, with which he was entrusted to carry out his assigned duties, to unlock the storage room and take the wine which was the property of the Organization for his personal benefit. The Director-General agreed with the HBA that that action was a violation of trust and of the complainant's responsibilities, and that the fact that his sole responsibility was the protection of security and safety of WHO premises was an aggravating factor.

  Keywords:

  aggravating circumstances; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3853

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory service.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [A] distinction can be drawn between an allegation of unsatisfactory service and an allegation of misconduct (see, for example, Judgments 247, consideration 13, 1163, consideration 5, and 1208, consideration 2). An allegation of unsatisfactory conduct must involve disciplinary procedures but this is not so if the allegation is simply one of unsatisfactory service (see, for example, Judgments 1501, consideration 3, and 1724, consideration 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 247, 1163, 1208, 1501, 1724
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; misconduct; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3852

  
  124th Session, 2017
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3848

  
  124th Session, 2017
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his special short-term contract for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; short-term;
  

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  Although it is true that the non-renewal of a contract is not one of the disciplinary measures that the Director General may impose pursuant to Staff Regulation 10(b), it does not follow, as IOM contends, that the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract was a discretionary decision. A finding of misconduct is one that is only made in the context of a disciplinary process. For example, in contrast with an administrative determination regarding unsatisfactory service, misconduct must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard of proof that is only applicable in a disciplinary proceeding. Further, a finding of misconduct is the final step in the disciplinary process before the imposition of a disciplinary measure.
  In the present case, it is not disputed that the decision not to renew the complainant’s contract was based solely on the finding of misconduct. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the non-renewal of the complainant’s contract was not an administrative discretionary decision, it was a disguised disciplinary measure and was unlawful. The case law consistently states that even if an organization’s regulations, rules and other relevant documents do not provide for formal disciplinary procedures, the disciplinary process requires that “before deciding a disciplinary sanction” the concerned staff member must be given “ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him” (see Judgment 3682, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3682
  

  Keywords:

  case law; disciplinary procedure; due process; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3725

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measures imposed on him following an investigation into alleged misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  It is well established in the case law that where misconduct is denied, the burden falls upon the Organization to prove misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt and the staff member is to be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgment 2879, under 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2879
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3682

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment for gross misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; harassment; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3649

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director General of the IAEA to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; misconduct;
  

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [I]t is useful to reiterate the well settled case law that the burden of proof rests on an organization to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction is imposed. It is equally well settled that the “Tribunal will not engage in a determination as to whether the burden of proof has been met, instead, the Tribunal will review the evidence to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made” (see Judgment 2699, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2699
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; evidence; misconduct; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant has not established any adverse consequences in terms of his ability to adequately respond stemming from the amount of time allocated to respond. It is also observed that he was granted an extension of time when requested and he was able to meet all the stipulated deadlines.

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; due process; misconduct;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3604

  
  121st Session, 2016
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges inter alia the rejection of her appeal against the non-renewal of her appointment for misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; misconduct; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3602

  
  121st Session, 2016
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former employee of the WTO, contests the Director-General’s decision to summarily dismiss him for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3581

  
  121st Session, 2016
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; misconduct; summary dismissal;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >