Harassment (642, 679, 820, 827,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Harassment
Total judgments found: 180
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4601
135th Session, 2023
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him after an internal complaint of harassment was made against him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to [...] the [...] Administrative Memorandum No. 985, harassment normally implies a series of incidents over a period of time, so it is not impossible for a harassment complaint to be based on relatively old events. That provision reflects the Tribunal’s case law, according to which, first, conduct over a period of time can inform the characterisation of particular conduct as harassment (see, in particular, Judgments 4288, consideration 3, and 4233, consideration 3) and, secondly, an accumulation of repeated events, as well as a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions, can be such as to have compromised the dignity and career objectives of a staff member (see, in particular, Judgment 4286, consideration 17). Indeed, harassment may involve a series of acts over time and can be the result of the cumulative effect of several manifestations of conduct which, taken in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see Judgment 4233, consideration 3, and the case law referred to therein), even if they were not challenged at the time (see Judgment 4253, consideration 5, and the judgments cited therein).
It is therefore not in itself unusual that the [investigator] also took into account incidents of harassment which had already been reported in previously-lodged internal complaints [...]. The fact that the latter complaints did not lead to a full investigation being launched or, following such an investigation, to disciplinary proceedings being taken against the complainant, is irrelevant, since there was nothing to prevent the Organization from relying on those allegations of harassment, amongst other things, during the examination of a later complaint that reported new incidents. Equally irrelevant is the fact, relied on by the complainant, that none of the accusers behind those allegations complained at the time that the concrete measures decided on by the Organization were insufficient.
The complainant’s reliance on a potential breach of the rule against double jeopardy is therefore not substantiated [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4233, 4253, 4286, 4288
Keywords:
double jeopardy; harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; harassment; summary dismissal;
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 4
Extract:
The submission that the accuser was in bad faith and exaggerated the gravity of the incident is completely devoid of merit. The good faith of the accuser was never questioned during the disciplinary proceedings, nor does the complainant provide evidence of bad faith in the present complaint as required by the case law (see, for example, Judgment 3902, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902
Keywords:
bad faith; harassment;
Judgment 4578
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4549
134th Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision to reject her harassment complaint.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The failure, without valid grounds and notwithstanding the discretion conferred by paragraph 9 of Article 13.4 of the Staff Regulations, to hear witnesses potentially supportive of the complainant’s allegations constituted a breach of due process (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3). The complainant’s allegation is therefore well founded. As this error of law vitiates the validity of the investigation report, which forms the basis of the impugned decision, that decision must be set aside, without there being any need to address the complainant’s other pleas (see Judgments 4313, consideration 7, and 4110, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4110, 4111, 4313
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; testimony; witness;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; harassment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, where an investigation into allegations of harassment is seriously flawed, the Tribunal in principle remits the matter to the organization concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted (see, for example, Judgment 4313, consideration 8, and Judgment 4111, consideration 8). In some specific situations the Tribunal may determine whether the harassment occurred (see, for example, Judgment 4241, consideration 15, and Judgment 4207, consideration 21). But in the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied it would not be appropriate to do so. In particular, given that the complainant is still employed by the ILO, in the event that a properly conducted investigation demonstrates that she was the victim of harassment, appropriate measures from the ILO may be warranted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4111, 4207, 4241, 4313
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal emphasises [...] that a staff member who lodges a harassment complaint is plainly a party to the procedure conducted to ascertain whether that complaint is well founded, even though she or he would not be a party to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings taken against the perpetrator in the event that the harassment was recognised. The staff member concerned is therefore entitled to know whether it has been recognised that acts of harassment have been committed against her or him and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, [...] consideration 4, both of which concern harassment complaints). In the present case, and since such an explanation of reasons could, inter alia, support a possible claim for compensation for the injury suffered, the complainant should have been adequately informed, in the President’s final decision [...], of the reasons why the organisation did or did not recognise the existence of harassment by her supervisor (see Judgments 3096, consideration 15, and [...] 4541, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207, 4541, 4541
Keywords:
harassment; right to information;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that a decision of an international organisation finding that a harassment complaint is unfounded and rejecting a claim for compensation for the material or moral injury allegedly suffered by the staff member who lodged that complaint is an administrative decision that may adversely affect her or him. [T]he Tribunal has on several occasions held that any staff member who lodges such a complaint is entitled to know whether the person named in the complaint has been found to have committed acts of harassment and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, [...] Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, consideration 4). Consequently, contrary to the JAB’s view, the complainant was entitled to challenge in an internal appeal both the decision [...] informing her that the case had been closed because there had been no harassment and the decision [...] confirming that initial decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 4541
Keywords:
cause of action; harassment; inquiry;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that it is irrelevant that IFAD no longer had any reason to take measures to protect the complainant in the present case since she had left the organisation. That is not what the complainant seeks. She does not claim protection, which would indeed be pointless, but compensation for the material and moral injury she submits she suffered as a result of the conduct in question.
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; harassment;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence; harassment; inquiry;
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;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[M]erely informing an international civil servant that disciplinary proceedings have been started against a supervisor
following an investigation into a complaint of harassment and that appropriate managerial measures have been taken [...] does not enable that civil servant to know whether the harassment she or he alleges has been recognised and, if so, how the organisation concerned intends to compensate her or him for the material or moral injury suffered (see, to that effect, Judgment 3965, consideration 9).
[...]
[T]he staff member who engaged the procedure, while not entitled to be informed of any measures taken against the alleged harasser, is entitled to a decision on the question of harassment itself (see [...] Judgment 3096, consideration 15) and, in consequence, to receive a reply from the administration concerning her or his harassment complaint (see, to that effect, Judgment 4207, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207
Keywords:
harassment; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] that the main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of repeated acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see, for example, Judgment 4241, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Organisation [...] breached its obligation to give a staff member who complains of harassment by her or his supervisor a clear and definite reply regarding the existence and characterisation of the conduct complained of and any redress it intends to provide [...].
Keywords:
harassment; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4525
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of his request to be awarded monetary compensation for the material and moral injury he allegedly sustained as a consequence of the IAEA’s failure to investigate allegations of harassment made against him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Ordinarily, a decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of harassment and to close the case without further action would not be regarded as a decision adversely affecting the official subject of the allegations, who therefore would have no cause of action to challenge such a decision.
Keywords:
cause of action; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that “decisions which appear to be managerially justified when taken individually, can amount to institutional harassment when the accumulation of repeated events of mismanagement or omissions, for which there is no reasonable explanation, deeply and adversely affect the staff member’s dignity and career objectives” (see, for example, Judgment 4345, consideration 8; see also Judgments 3250, 4111 and 4243).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 4111, 4243, 4345
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment;
Judgment 4518
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a fixed-term position and the non-renewal of his short-term contract, as well as the organisation’s refusal to conduct an investigation into the allegations of harassment made against him which, according to him, form the basis of the non-appointment and non-renewal decisions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; non-renewal of contract; selection procedure; short-term;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Whilst in the circumstances of this case it would be impracticable to order the complainant’s reinstatement, ITU will be ordered to compensate him because he was denied the opportunity to be appointed to the advertised post on a two-year contract in circumstances where he was the only candidate whom the Director of TSB and the Chief of Department had […] recommended to fill the post after the selection procedure. But for the unsubstantiated allegations, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that he would have been appointed.
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; loss of opportunity; reinstatement;
Judgment 4516
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his allegations of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; harassment; investigation; patere legem;
Judgment 4512
134th Session, 2022
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his grievance complaint against Mr H. and to close the case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 4496
134th Session, 2022
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered moral harassment, in particular when his end-of-service certificate was drawn up.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n his submissions the complainant essentially asks the Tribunal to repeat the Advisory Board’s analysis and to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the Board. This misconstrues the role of the Tribunal, which, in Judgment 4344, consideration 8, pointed out:
“[...] that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of facts, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason, such a body is entitled to considerable deference.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4344
Keywords:
harassment; role of the tribunal;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] notes that, in accordance with the requirements of its case law, as recalled, for example, in Judgment 3577, consideration 10, the organisation dealt with the complainant’s allegations of harassment in a timely and efficient manner.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3577
Keywords:
delay; harassment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 4167, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following concerning the applicable provision in another organisation that made the existence of harassment contingent on the alleged harasser’s intention to commit harassment:
[...]
This Tribunal is obviously not bound by the case law of the courts of the European Union. However, in the present case, it interprets Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations in the same way, bearing in mind that this interpretation is in line with its general case law on the subject, according to which harassment and mobbing do not require any malicious intent (see Judgments 2524, consideration 25, 3400, consideration 7, and 4085, consideration 15).” [...]
The Tribunal reiterated that intent is not a necessary element of harassment in Judgment 3250, consideration 9.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3400, 4085, 4167
Keywords:
case law of other tribunals; harassment; intention of parties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
certificate of service; complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 4471
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his complaint of psychological harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[O]ver one year elapsed between the lodging by the complainant of his psychological harassment complaint and the notification of the decision to close it, which informed him of the outcome of the preliminary investigation. In Judgment 4243, the Tribunal states that harassment cases should be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible (see also Judgment 3660, consideration 7). As the complainant rightly points out in his complaint, the Tribunal has consistently held, inter alia, in Judgments 3692, consideration 18, and 3777, consideration 7, that an organisation has a duty to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into harassment complaints. The Policy of Eurocontrol echoes this. It provides that the Director General will, without delay, set up a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether the internal harassment complaint warrants the convening of the Disciplinary Board; it also provides that this investigation will be performed with the minimum of delay consistent with fairness to both parties (paragraph 4.7 of the Guidelines and Procedures to support the Policy). It should be added that the Tribunal emphasises in several judgments that the duty of care requires an allegation of harassment to be investigated promptly (see, for example, Judgments 2636, consideration 28, 3337, considerations 11 and 15, and 3365, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 3337, 3365, 3660, 3692, 3777, 4243
Keywords:
administrative delay; delay in internal procedure; harassment; time limit;
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is plain from Judgments 4167 and 4217, which also concern complaints of psychological harassment, that a decision is rendered unlawful by the refusal of an organisation’s executive head to disclose to the joint appeals body the report of the investigation into the harassment complaint lodged by the official concerned, or at least a redacted copy thereof. Similarly, in the aforementioned Judgment 4217, considerations 4 to 6, the Tribunal points out that, according to settled case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him. In this case, the Joint Committee for Disputes, on whose opinion the Director General states he bases his decision of 15 December 2016, was not provided with the investigation report concerned. Nor had the complainant received it by the time he was notified on 14 January 2016 that his psychological harassment complaint had been closed. In Judgment 4081, the Tribunal recalls that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to understand why it was taken and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the Director General neither provided information nor referred to the Committee’s reasons that would allow the complainant to understand why the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4217
Keywords:
confidentiality; final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Consideration 16
Extract:
At this stage of its findings, the Tribunal should in principle remit the case to the Organisation for a fresh examination of the complainant’s internal complaint [...]. However, in view of the evidence in the file and the time that has elapsed, it appears more appropriate not to remit the case but to examine the lawfulness of the decision central to the dispute, that is, the Director General’s decision [...] to dismiss the psychological harassment complaint and to close the case (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 4167, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; harassment;
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he complainant was denied the right to have his harassment complaint dealt with within a reasonable time, to receive an adequate motivation for its dismissal and to have a copy of the preliminary investigation report concerning that complaint provided in a timely and appropriate manner. This has inevitably caused him considerable moral injury which must be redressed (see, concerning acknowledgement of moral injury in such circumstances, Judgments 4167, consideration 9, 3314, consideration 20, and 2973, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3314, 4167
Keywords:
harassment; moral injury; procedural flaw;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal has repeatedly drawn attention to a number of important general principles applicable to harassment. In Judgment 4241, consideration 9, the Tribunal states that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. The judgment refers to the need for corroboration by specific facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4241
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 4454
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to reject his allegations of misconduct on the part of the Secretary-General.
Consideration 11
Extract:
In its pleas UNWTO challenges the receivability of the complaint on the basis that there was no relevant administrative decision by the Ethics Officer. At least implicitly there was (see, for example, Judgment 3747, consideration 5), and it involved a determination that there had been no harassment or retaliation, which was manifest by the decision to close, and thus finalise, the complaints.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3747
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4449
133rd Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks additional compensation for the delay in dealing with her harassment complaint.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[B]y quoting Judgment 3314, consideration 25, concerning WHO, the complainant alleges that the delay to process the harassment complaint amounted itself to continued harassment. Judgment 3314, consideration 25, reads as follows: “In summary, the Organization breached Staff Rule 1230.3.3, the complainant’s contract and its duty to provide her with a congenial working environment. In effect, the Organization denied the complainant the due process to which she was entitled in the investigation of her harassment complaint. The result was a delay which exposed the complainant to continued harassment.” In that case, it was the organization’s failure in its duty to provide a congenial harassment-free workplace that had caused the complainant a further harassment. In the present case, the complainant separated from WHO shortly after filing her harassment complaint. Her situation is therefore not comparable to that of the complainant in the case leading to Judgment 3314. Also, there is no evidence to prove that actions of the Administration in the internal procedures constituted harassment.
Keywords:
delay in internal procedure; harassment; precedent;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Judgment 4448
133rd Session, 2022
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Global Fund’s alleged failure to take a final decision on her formal complaint of harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 4445
133rd Session, 2022
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the procedure regarding his harassment complaint against his former supervisor.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Appeals Committee concluded that the complainant’s “claims” related to the subject PACE reports were irreceivable because they were the subject of two other internal appeals. The Appeals Committee expressly did not consider any aspect related to those reports which the complainant raised in his internal appeal (subsequently resolved in Judgments 3879 and 4229). This was wrong because the complainant was not seeking to relitigate the issues raised in those complaints in which he challenged the lawfulness of those PACE reports. In the present complaint his central allegation is, in effect, that specific actions by his supervisor during the course of those appraisal procedures support his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority. It is therefore clear that the complainant’s allegations insofar as they may concern those matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to close his harassment complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4241, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3879, 4229, 4241
Keywords:
harassment; performance evaluation; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4378
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close after an initial review and without conducting a formal investigation his harassment complaint against the WHO Internal Oversight Services.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; investigation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is understandable why the complainant’s formal harassment complaint was directed against IOS. He was not necessarily informed who from that department was involved in his case. The fact that the complainant’s harassment complaint was directed against the entire IOS did not absolve WHO from investigating (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14; see also Judgment 4207, consideration 15), as the complaint could readily be construed as targeting the persons within IOS who had dealt with the complainant’s case, even if their identity was known only to the Administration. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that paragraph 3.1.4 of the WHO Policy provides that “[h]arassment may involve a group”. Finally, WHO cannot ignore that the case law of the Tribunal recognizes institutional harassment (see Judgments 3250, 4111, 4243 and 4345) and that it should take this into account when interpreting its own rules. Accordingly, the external reviewer’s finding that the complainant’s harassment complaint was beyond the scope of the WHO Policy and was, therefore, irreceivable is an error of law. However, this error of law does not have any impact on the outcome of the present complaint, as the external reviewer also conducted an initial review of the substance of the complainant’s harassment complaint, as provided in the WHO Policy.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3347, 4111, 4207, 4243, 4345
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; mistake of law;
Consideration 25
Extract:
The complainant’s reliance on Judgments 3264 and 3137 is misplaced. It is recalled that in the present complaint the complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint against IOS. In the harassment complaint, the complainant identified actions taken by IOS in its investigation of allegations of misconduct made against him that he claimed amounted to harassment and abuse of power. Thus, in submitting the harassment complaint, the complainant was the reporter of possible misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment and a witness. Given that the complainant, in this case, was not the subject of the investigation process and, therefore, was not in an adversarial situation, as contemplated in Judgments 3264 and 3137, the principle of due process and the right to be heard are not applicable in these circumstances. Accordingly, the complainant’s submission that his right to be heard was violated is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3137, 3264
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation; right to be heard;
Judgment 4349
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider his harassment complaint closed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 4347
131st Session, 2021
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
