|
|
 |
|
|
Serious misconduct (394,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Serious misconduct
Total judgments found: 66
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4115
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; downgrading; serious misconduct;
Judgment 4114
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to downgrade him for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; downgrading; serious misconduct;
Judgment 4047
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her with immediate effect the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; serious 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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]here is nothing in the record indicating if or when the Director General determined that the serious misconduct had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. If he did rely on the conclusion reached in the Investigation Report, that reliance was misplaced. Such a conclusion was clearly beyond the scope of the Investigation Team’s mandate and Terms of Reference that were limited to fact-finding. [...] This was the expression of an opinion that does not belong in a fact-finding report, was highly prejudicial to the complainant and undermines the fairness of the reporting.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"In Judgment 2944, under 50, the Tribunal described the test for proportionality as the disciplinary measure must not be “manifestly out of proportion” to the misconduct. In this case, the Tribunal observes the seriousness of the complainant’s actions. He misused PAHO’s resources and immunity in a fashion that was deliberate and careless; he risked PAHO’s reputation and its relationship with the government of Venezuela; he breached his duty of loyalty to PAHO; and his conduct was incompatible with the performance of his duties as PAHO Country Representative in Venezuela. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that summary dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2944
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; discretion; general principle; misconduct; official; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Even in the absence of fraud or other dishonesty, systematic action taken for the purpose of circumventing the Financial Rules by a person whose function it is to authorise the expenditure of the funds of an international organisation constitutes serious misconduct."
Keywords:
definition; misconduct; serious misconduct;
Judgment 3081
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; misconduct; serious misconduct; suspension; termination of employment;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"It does not follow that, because the Administration has failed to prove misconduct, the charge of serious misconduct was "specious" or part of a campaign of bullying and intimidation, as claimed by the complainant. On that issue the complainant bears the onus of proof. And as the evidence [...] is inconclusive, his claims in this regard must be rejected."
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; misconduct; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 50
Extract:
"It is fundamental that a person not be punished twice for the same conduct or, more precisely for present purposes, that he or she not be subject to two separate and distinct adverse administrative decisions for the same conduct (see Judgment 934). As the complainant was subject to an adverse administrative decision, namely, a decision not to renew her contract on the basis of the matters relied upon in the [...] letter of 25 October 2006, it follows that the complainant's summary dismissal can be supported only on the basis of different conduct which, itself, amounted to serious misconduct or that, in some way, gave an added dimension to the conduct specified in the letter of 25 October so that it took on a more serious nature than previously was the case."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 934
Keywords:
decision; double jeopardy; non-renewal of contract; remand; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It is not open to an international organisation to justify a decision by conducting further enquiries after the internal appeal proceedings have been concluded, much less by conducting enquiries into a charge of misconduct that was not relied upon as the basis for rejecting an internal appeal. So to do is not only to deprive a person of his/her right to be heard in answer to a charge of misconduct, including by testing the evidence against him/her, but also to render the appeal proceedings futile."
Keywords:
breach; decision; evidence; grounds; inquiry; internal appeal; investigation; organisation's duties; refusal; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if he or she so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgment 2496, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496
Keywords:
advisory body; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that, even supposing that the complainant could be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he deliberately took part in the misappropriation of funds, the setting up at his behest of an unsupervised funding system which clearly made such misappropriation possible was in itself an act sufficiently imprudent for it to constitute a serious disciplinary offence."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; official; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2757
105th Session, 2008
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In the context of 'serious misconduct', the question whether a statement was made falsely is not simply whether the statement is true or false. A statement made innocently, which turns out to be false, does not constitute serious misconduct. A statement is made innocently if the person concerned honestly believes on reasonable grounds that the statement is true. Conversely, for the purposes of serious misconduct, a statement is falsely made if it is both untrue and the person concerned did not believe on reasonable grounds that it was true."
Keywords:
definition; grounds; intention of parties; judicial review; misrepresentation; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2719
105th Session, 2008
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Standing alone, the punishment of summary dismissal, as distinct from dismissal, might be thought to be disproportionate to the misconduct of which the complainant was guilty. However, he was twice warned in writing in 1998 to improve his poor attendance record. In the same year, he was informed that the complaints received 'with regard to [...] alleged financial manipulations, fraudulent activities, police and court cases' were causing embarrassment to the Organization and he was cautioned to 'extricate [him]self from these situations'. In 2002, he was found guilty of misconduct in relation to banking transactions and issued with a written reprimand. In the light of these matters, the punishment of summary dismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate."
Keywords:
censure; conduct; disciplinary measure; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; warning;
Judgment 2698
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."
Keywords:
breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
[...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;
Judgment 2555
101st Session, 2006
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed. He contends that such a punishment was disproportionate. "If it is true that the complainant altered the configuration of his computer in order to use it for purposes unrelated to his duties, and in particular to visit pornographic sites and download software and music, then the sanction cannot be regarded as disproportionate."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; organisation's reputation; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct following an investigation. "The procedure adopted in this case was clearly flawed in that the complainant was denied the opportunity to question any of the persons whose statements were used against him, evidence of little probative value was relied upon and, at least to some extent, he was required to prove his innocence instead of having the matters alleged proven against him. [...] It follows that the [...] decision [...] to dismiss the complainant must be set aside. The complainant shall be reinstated [...] and shall receive all arrears of salaries and other benefits; he must account for any earnings from other employment."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; burden of proof; consequence; disciplinary measure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; procedural flaw; reinstatement; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; testimony;
Judgment 2232
95th Session, 2003
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant, who had been the Organisation's Director-General, impugns the decision to terminate his appointment. "In accordance with the established case law of all international administrative tribunals, the Tribunal reaffirms that the independence of international civil servants is an essential guarantee, not only for the civil servants themselves, but also for the proper functioning of international organisations. In the case of heads of organisations, that independence is protected, inter alia, by the fact that they are appointed for a limited term of office. To concede that the authority in which the power of appointment is vested - in this case the Conference of the States parties of the Organisation - may terminate that appointment in its unfettered discretion, would constitute an unacceptable violation of the principles on which international organisations' activities are founded [...], by rendering officials vulnerable to pressures and to political change. The possibility that a measure of the kind taken against the complainant may, exceptionally, be justified in cases of grave misconduct cannot be excluded, but such a measure, being punitive in nature, could only be taken in full compliance with the principle of due process, following a procedure enabling the individual concerned to defend his or her case effectively before an independent and impartial body."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appointment; breach; case law; condition; discretion; exception; executive body; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; hidden disciplinary measure; iloat; independence; internal appeals body; limits; member state; official; organisation; right to reply; safeguard; serious misconduct; termination of employment; tribunal;
Judgment 1984
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. He argues that the German criminal law would have taken into account mitigating circumstances, something the organisation failed to do. "Although under German criminal law these facts might remove or mitigate the penal nature that could attach to the offence of attempted fraud, when disciplinary sanctions are applied it is immaterial whether or not an act is criminal. Furthermore, the fact that the organisation in the end suffered no financial injury because it did not have to pay out money it did not owe, does not mean that the complainant's misconduct should not have been sanctioned."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; domestic law; lack of injury; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; separation from service; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
