|
|
 |
|
|
Suspension (513, 942,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Suspension
Total judgments found: 43
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4658
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension with pay during disciplinary proceedings against him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; suspension;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is of the view that the reasoning given for the suspension decision of 3 April 2018 is a generic formula which, in the absence of any other explanation, is meaningless. Accordingly, adequate reasons were not given for the decision [...].
Keywords:
motivation; suspension;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[P]recedent has it that any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgments 4437, consideration 19, and 4108, consideration 3; see, concerning particularly the obligation to provide reasons for a measure of suspension, Judgment 4455, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4108, 4437, 4455
Keywords:
motivation; suspension;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the Tribunal has stated on a number of occasions, a measure of suspension decided in the context of disciplinary proceedings, with or without pay, is an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision to be taken on the merits as to whether a disciplinary sanction should be imposed on the official concerned. However, since it imposes a constraint on the official, it must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of misconduct (see, in particular, Judgments 4519, consideration 2, 3035, consideration 10, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4586, consideration 8, 4519, consideration 2, 4452, consideration 7, 3037, consideration 9, 3035, consideration 10, 2698, consideration 9, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). In order to assess whether a measure of suspension is lawful, the Tribunal must determine whether the conditions required to take such a measure were met at the time it was ordered, all subsequent facts being irrelevant (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 12, and 2365, consideration 4(c)). Where a measure of suspension has been extended, the Tribunal must also determine whether the conditions for each extension decision were met at the time that decision was taken (see, in particular, Judgment 4586, consideration 10). Lastly, while an authority may adopt a measure of suspension if it considers, on the basis of the evidence before it and at its own discretion, that the charge of misconduct against an official is reasonable, there is no need at this stage to prove that the accusations are well founded (see, in particular, Judgments 3036, consideration 13, 3035, consideration 14(a), and 2698, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 2365, 2698, 3035, 3036, 3037, 4452, 4519, 4586
Keywords:
judicial review; suspension;
Judgment 4612
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to suspend her from duties with immediate effect.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[I]t is convenient to set out the legal principles applied by the Tribunal when considering a challenge to a suspension decision. The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 4452, consideration 7, 3037, consideration 9, 2698, consideration 9, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of an official is a provisional measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against her or him (see Judgments 2365, consideration 4(a) and 1927, consideration 5). However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis, be justified by the needs of the organisation and be taken with due regard to the principle of proportionality. A staff member does not have a general right to be heard before a decision to suspend is made (see, for example, Judgment 4361, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4361, 4452
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; suspension;
Judgment 4586
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that the grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend a staff member are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority and that the suspension of an official is a provisional measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against her or him. However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis, be justified by the needs of the organization and be taken with due regard to the principle of proportionality (see Judgment 4515, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4515
Keywords:
discretion; suspension;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Rule 10.3 does not make any explicit provision for an official concerned to be heard before the decision to suspend her or him is announced. Indeed, suspension is an interim precautionary measure which, in principle, must be adopted urgently, and this will often make it impossible to invite the person concerned to express her or his opinion beforehand. Nevertheless, a person’s right to be heard must be exercised before the substantive decision is taken to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 3138, consideration 10(a), and 2365, consideration 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365, 3138
Keywords:
due process; right to be heard; suspension;
Judgment 4579
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.
Consideration 11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of an official is a provisional measure, which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against her or him. However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis.
Keywords:
suspension;
Judgment 4519
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay.
Consideration 6
Extract:
ITU argues in its submissions that the reference to the duration of the investigation in the aforementioned Staff Rule 10.1.3(a) should be interpreted flexibly, since the intention behind that provision is to allow the organisation to continue a staff member’s suspension until the end of any disciplinary proceedings initiated as a result of the investigation itself.
However, it is well established in the case law that where the wording of a provision is clear, the Tribunal will not engage in any constructive interpretation of this kind (see, for example, Judgments 1125, consideration 4, or 3358, consideration 5). The reference to the duration of the investigation in Staff Rule 10.1.3(a) is unambiguous. Furthermore, the Tribunal considers that, contrary to what ITU submits, there may be a rationale behind the limitation of the length of the suspension to that of the investigation that explains the content of the provision in question. Indeed, the main aim of suspending a staff member suspected of misconduct is often to prevent her or him taking any steps to destroy evidence or place witnesses under pressure. However, the issue of preserving the evidence no longer exists in the same way once the investigation is over. Lastly, while the Tribunal is aware of the difficulty that the return to duty of a staff member after her or his provisional suspension may cause in some cases, it is not the Tribunal’s role to palliate any defects in a provision, it being for the competent authorities of ITU to remedy them if need be.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1125, 3358
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules; suspension;
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of a staff member is an interim measure which need not necessarily be followed by a substantive decision to impose a disciplinary sanction (see Judgments 1927, consideration 5, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). Nevertheless, since it imposes a constraint on the staff member, suspension must be legally founded, justified by the requirements of the organisation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A measure of suspension will not be ordered except in cases of serious misconduct. Such a decision lies at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head. It is subject therefore to only limited review by the Tribunal and will not be set aside unless it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or was based on an error of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or was tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see aforementioned Judgment 2365, consideration 4(a),
and Judgments 2698, consideration 9, 3037, consideration 9, and 4452, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4452
Keywords:
proportionality; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The wording of Staff Rule 10.1.3(a) makes plain that the suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3 is intended as a measure that may be taken “pending an investigation” and that the staff member concerned may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until its end. As the Tribunal has already held concerning the application of similarly worded staff rules in another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending a staff member until the end of the investigation into the actions of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently brought against the staff member concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Contrary to what the Organisation submits, this approach does not contradict that adopted in previous cases concerning ITU. Although in Judgment 3138 the Tribunal accepted the lawfulness of a suspension ordered after the delivery of the report into the investigation of the acts of which the complainant was accused in that case, it did so on the ground, set out in consideration 11 of that judgment, that an “additional investigation” was planned when the decision was taken. Nor is Judgment 2601, also quoted by ITU, relevant since it concerned a challenge to decisions taken at the end of a disciplinary procedure and, as pointed out in consideration 13 thereof, did not call into question the lawfulness of the prior suspension. Finally, although ITU also refers to Judgment 3502, concerning another organisation where the suspension of staff members is governed by similar provisions, the Tribunal observes that the suspension at issue in that judgment was ordered pending the outcome of an investigation and that, although the suspension was extended until the end of the subsequent disciplinary procedure, the plea was not framed in the same way in the other case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2601, 3138, 3880
Keywords:
inquiry; patere legem; suspension;
Judgment 4515
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the conversion of his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for harassment undertaken against him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3a) is intended to be a measure that may be taken “pending [the outcome of the] investigation” and a staff member subject to it may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until the investigation is completed. As the Tribunal has already had the occasion to hold in relation to the application of similarly worded regulations of another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending an official until the end of the investigation into the facts of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently instituted against the official concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords:
investigation; patere legem; suspension;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The power to suspend a staff member under Staff Rule 10.1.3 is within the discretion of the Secretary-General. The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 2365, consideration 4(a), 2698, consideration 9, 3037, consideration 9, and 4452, consideration 7). According to the Tribunal’s case law, the suspension of an official is a provisional measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the substance of any disciplinary measure against him (see Judgments 1927, consideration 5, and 2365, consideration 4(a)). However, as a restrictive measure on the staff member concerned, the suspension must have a legal basis, be justified by the needs of the organisation and be taken with due regard to the principle of proportionality. In order for a suspension measure to be taken, the official must be accused of serious misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 2365, 2698, 3037, 4452
Keywords:
discretion; proportionality; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the complainant has articulated the effects which the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay had on him, and, given the serious hardship that he suffered, which ITU itself acknowledges, he is entitled to moral damages.
Keywords:
moral damages; suspension;
Judgment 4478
133rd Session, 2022
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of delayed advancement to the next salary step for a period of 20 months, pursuant to Staff Rule 10.1.1.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]ccording to the case law, a suspension decision has, by itself, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect and can be challenged by itself (see, for example, Judgment 4237, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4237
Keywords:
internal remedies exhausted; suspension;
Judgment 4461
133rd Session, 2022
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Since the suspension decision as well as the decision to remove him from his duties had, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the complainant, and were not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must themselves be challenged (see, for example, Judgments 1927, consideration 5, 2365, consideration 4, 3035, consideration 10, and 4237, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035, 4237
Keywords:
impugned decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 4455
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
The power to suspend is enlivened when the Secretary-General considers, in the specified circumstances, that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. The power is founded on the opinion of the Secretary-General on the question of prejudice.
When the complainant was suspended with pay by memorandum dated 4 May 2018, the approach of the Secretary-General was, on its face, orthodox and in conformity with Staff Rule 29. First the Secretary-General said that a sanction was being considered and identified it as summary dismissal. Secondly the Secretary-General addressed the question of prejudice and gave a rational, albeit brief, explanation why the interests of the service may be prejudiced if the complainant continued in service.
The grounds for reviewing the exercise of the discretionary power to suspend are limited to questions of whether the decision was taken without authority, in breach of a rule of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, involved an essential fact being overlooked or constituted an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2365, consideration 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
discretion; role of the tribunal; suspension;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]here is an anterior issue, namely whether the complainant was provided with adequate reasons for the decision to suspend her with pay bearing in mind that suspension is a matter of some gravity (see Judgment 3496, consideration 2). As noted earlier, one relevant question arising under Staff Rule 29(1) for which reasons should be provided at least in case such as the present, is why the decision-maker (the Secretary-General) concluded that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. Ordinarily the other question arising under Staff Rule 29(1), whether it is a case that appears to call for a sanction, can readily be answered by reference to the actual or pending charges and the then known or alleged facts. Generally, the source of those reasons can be a document other than the document communicating the decision and indeed can be what an official is told at a meeting (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 7, and Judgment 3914, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3496, 3914, 4037
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension;
Consideration 15
Extract:
There is no general legal obligation on an organisation to give a member of staff an opportunity to contest a prospective decision to suspend her or him. Thus, there was no flawed procedure.
Keywords:
due process; procedural flaw; suspension;
Judgment 4452
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to suspend him with pay and then without pay during the disciplinary procedure for misconduct as well as the appointment of a colleague to what he describes as his “job and functions”.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The power to suspend is enlivened when the Secretary-General considers, in the specified circumstances, that continuation in service of the official may prejudice the service. The power is founded on the opinion of the Secretary-General on the question of prejudice. It is tolerably clear that a decision to suspend without salary when there might be summary dismissal, is linked to the power to make the summary dismissal retroactive to the date of suspension. The rationale appears to be that if retroactive summary dismissal is the ultimate outcome, circumstances should not be created where the suspended official has been paid but for a period when he was not in employment, at least notionally, and recovery of that payment may be problematic.
When the complainant was suspended with pay […], the approach of the Secretary-General was, on its face, quite orthodox and in conformity with Staff Rule 29. First, the Secretary-General said that a sanction was being considered and identified it as summary dismissal. Notwithstanding, a decision was not then made though it could have been, to suspend the complainant without pay. Secondly the Secretary-General addressed the question of prejudice and gave a rational explanation why the interests of the service may be prejudiced if the complainant continued in service.
Keywords:
discretion; suspension; suspension without pay;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A] power to suspend a member of staff as an incidence of disciplinary proceedings potentially leading to the application of a sanction is conferred by the Staff Rules. There is no express qualification on the exercise of that power precluding suspension while a member of staff is on sick leave. No reason of substance is advanced as to why that qualification should be implied nor any reference to Tribunal case law leading to the same result.
Keywords:
sick leave; suspension;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Sick leave simply authorises a member of staff not to attend for work. While suspension requires a member of staff not to attend work, its legal effect is much wider and impacts upon the capacity of a member of staff to participate in the workings of the organisation more generally. In the circumstances of this case, the fact that the complainant was on sick leave for the then identified short period had no material bearing on whether he should be suspended.
Keywords:
sick leave; suspension;
Judgment 4361
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;
Consideration 12
Extract:
Judgment 3863, consideration 13, clearly establishes that suspension can take place at the outset and can occur before the investigation of the allegations and there is no violation of due process rights for this to occur (see also Judgments 3502, consideration 17, and 3138, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138, 3502, 3863
Keywords:
suspension;
Judgment 4359
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;
Consideration 12
Extract:
Judgment 3863, consideration 13, clearly establishes that suspension can take place at the outset and can occur before the investigation of the allegations and there is no violation of due process rights for this to occur (see also Judgments 3502, consideration 17, and 3138, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3138, 3502, 3863
Keywords:
suspension;
Judgment 4310
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The unlawfulness of the procedure which led to the complainant’s summary dismissal and its excessive length caused moral injury to the complainant, who was suspended without salary and remained uncertain as to his professional situation for an unacceptably long time.
Keywords:
moral injury; summary dismissal; suspension;
Judgment 4287
130th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision lifting his non-disciplinary suspension from duties.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; suspension;
Judgment 4237
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision – taken after his resignation – to find him guilty of serious misconduct, and the decision to withhold from his separation entitlements an amount corresponding to financial losses allegedly incurred by WHO as a result of his misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3971, under 8, “[a]ll claims regarding the complainant’s suspension, house ban [...] are irreceivable for failure to exhaust the internal means of redress. The complainant did not file an internal appeal challenging those decisions separately [...] and cannot do so now in the present complaint. The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035, 3971
Keywords:
suspension;
Judgment 4148
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for five working days.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; freedom of association; suspension;
Judgment 3971
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to ban him from entering the EPO’s premises, to suspend him from duties and to downgrade him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; suspension;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The house-ban decision as well as the suspension decision have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal, and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered as mere steps leading to the final decision taken at the conclusion of the proceedings and, according to the Tribunal’s case law, must be challenged by themselves, and not as a part of the final decision (see Judgments 1927, under 5, 2365, under 4, and 3035, under 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1927, 2365, 3035
Keywords:
final decision; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment 3960
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision in which the Administrative Council decided to further maintain his suspension while reducing his salary by half until a final decision had been made in his case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; extension of contract; reinstatement; suspension;
Judgment 3958
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he decision regarding the house ban, as well as the suspension decision, even if they are essentially interim measures to safeguard the investigation, have, by themselves, an immediate, material, legal and adverse effect on the person concerned, and are not subsumed under the final decision taken at the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, they cannot be considered mere steps to the final decision of the proceeding. As such, the request for review of these decisions was receivable [...].
Keywords:
decision; measure of distraint; step in the procedure; suspension;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; reinstatement; suspension;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary procedure; suspension;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
