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 3580
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who held the post of Head of UNESCO’s National Office in Kinshasa, contends that she was subjected to harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; harassment;
Judgment 3579
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant complains of a breach of his “procedural rights” before the Appeals Board, the discontinuation of two elements of his mobility allowance and harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; harassment; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 3577
121st Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the implied rejection of their claims of harassment, undue termination and professional illness.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; illness; joinder; service-incurred; termination of employment;
Judgment 3545
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is time-barred and therefore irreceivable, it is dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; time bar;
Judgment 3537
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a competition procedure and alleges harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; harassment; joinder;
Judgment 3488
120th Session, 2015
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s decision to transfer him, asserting that his transfer was the result of harassment and retaliation.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
There is [...] evidence that, notwithstanding these internal problems in the AIS, the complainant suffered harassment by conduct that was not simply subsumed in the foregoing general dysfunctional circumstances. The evidence shows that the complainant’s first level supervisor was to some extent responsible for the delay in the extension of the complainant’s contract. It also shows that the complainant invariably did not receive written responses to his work-related reports. It also shows that, contrary to Staff Rule 530, his first-level supervisor often did not meet with him to discuss technical and administrative matters. In some instances, he left Mr L. to carry out first-level supervisory duties with regard to the complainant, when Mr L. had no supervisory relationship with the complainant. There is also evidence that the complainant was not given the financial resources that he should have received to permit him to carry out his assigned responsibilities. The evidence also shows that his first-level supervisor did not conduct a proper PPES review for the complainant in 2003 or a feasibility review, as required, but then requested only a one-year contract extension on the ground of inadequate performance and poor conduct.
The foregoing is evidence of conduct which a reasonable person would have found offensive, demeaning, humiliating and embarrassing thus constituting harassment in the terms set out in the Appendix to PAHO’s Policy on Harassment. Accordingly, the complainant’s claim that he suffered harassment is well founded.
Keywords:
harassment; supervisor;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; organisation's interest; transfer;
Judgment 3485
120th Session, 2015
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his harassment complaint for lack of evidence.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Lack of intention and lack of bad faith are not defences to a charge of harassment."
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"Normally the Tribunal would have returned this matter to the ICC, directing that the harassment complaint be properly heard. However, considering the time that has elapsed since the period of the alleged harassment and the nature of the evidence that is available, the Tribunal can determine the issue of harassment."
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; harassment; lack of evidence;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[R]epeated occurrences of the same or similar conduct may reveal, over time, the harassment of the complainant."
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is that harassing conduct over a long period is evidence which can be relied upon to prove the existence of more recent harassing conduct, and also that harassment can be the cumulative effect of conduct which, in isolation, might not be viewed as harassment (see Judgments 2100, under 13, 2553, under 6, 3318, under 7, 3233, under 6, and 3347, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2553, 3233, 3318, 3347
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"It is not controverted that some of [the complainant's]complaints went unanswered. This shows that there was a degree of indifference regarding his express concerns. This was not only another aspect of harassment but also a breach of the ICC’s duty of care towards the complainant which, in addition to the breach of due process, entitles him to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
duty of care; harassment; moral injury;
Judgment 3447
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to establish that harassment had occurred.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
In its detailed report, the JAAB clearly referred to the complainant’s numerous submissions and allegations and demonstrated in its findings and conclusions that it had indeed understood and considered all the evidence before it, but that it simply found no flaw in the investigation procedure nor in the conclusion that no harassment had occurred. The complainant does not provide persuasive evidence to show that the JAAB’s findings, or the procedure, suffered any material flaw. “Consistent case law holds that ‘harassment and mobbing do not require malice or intent, but that behaviour cannot be considered as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for it’ […]. The complainant did not show that the [JAAB’s] finding and conclusions involved any reviewable error. The situations and events that she cites as examples of mobbing and harassment cannot be considered as such because there is a reasonable explanation for each example.” (See Judgment 3192, under 15.) It is clear from the submissions of both parties, that the situations which the complainant perceived as harassment were quite reasonably explained by the managerial necessities of the Organization. Essentially, the conflict that resulted in the allegations of harassment lay in the poor working relationships that existed between the complainant and other members of the ILO/AIDS team.
[...]
[T]he Tribunal concludes that the complainant has failed to establish that harassment has occurred and finds that there was no manifest error in the JAAB’s weighing of the evidence. The working relations were tense, but not due to misconduct or abnormal behaviour by the complainant’s superiors. It should be noted that the situation could have been avoided if management had been more sensitive to the complainant’s personal needs and history when dealing with her requests and formulating their replies. However, the Tribunal recognises that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests, and therefore it cannot declare that any breach of care has occurred (see for example Judgments 2587, under 10, and 3192, under 22).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587, 3192
Keywords:
harassment; internal appeals body; report;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he complainant submits that the investigation took over nine months to complete and that this constitutes an excessive delay. The Tribunal finds that harassment cases in particular should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 2642, under 8). In the present case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that nine months to complete a harassment investigation is by no means excessive considering the length of the grievance itself and the over 300 annexes attached to be considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3442
119th Session, 2015
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the decision to dismiss internal appeals concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred disability was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint allowed; decision quashed; equal treatment; harassment; invalidity; joinder; service-incurred;
Judgment 3416
119th Session, 2015
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant's allegation of harassment was not supported by specific facts, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Consideration 1
Extract:
As the Tribunal has often recalled in its case law, allegations of harassment must be supported by specific facts and it is up to the person alleging harassment to prove the facts (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 3192, under 9, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3192, 3233
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 3400
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision in relation to the FAO's response to her harassment claim and her performance appraisal for 2009.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; joinder; performance report;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal is satisfied there was harassment involving continual unjustified and unnecessary comments and deliberate insults relating to the complainant’s professional competence.
Keywords:
harassment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
Whether behaviour is improper or not depends on the content of the behaviour, not intention. At least ordinarily, whether the behaviour is directed at and whether it is offensive to another person does not, again, depend on intention or at least an intention to harass. Also the definition allows for the possibility that the person engaging in the improper behaviour did not know it was offensive but ought reasonably to have known. At least in this latter circumstance, intention would be irrelevant. These comments broadly correspond with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal on the question of mobbing (see, for example, Judgment 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524
Keywords:
harassment; intention of parties; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3377
118th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision rejecting his harassment complaint, especially because he was deprived of work and because the Organisation breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The evidence shows that the Organization breached its duty to ensure that the complainant’s dignity was preserved with meaningful work during his last three years in the Organization. It was, in effect, a continual exclusion from work over that period. This constituted harassment that the FAO’s Administrative Circular No. 2007/05 expressly proscribes."
Keywords:
harassment; respect for dignity;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The evidence further shows that the Organization also breached its duty to ensure that his complaints were addressed in a proactive manner. Circular No. 2007/05 charges persons who are in supervisory positions to ensure adherence to the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment by taking early corrective measures to avert or correct any act that threatens or compromises a staff member’s dignity. There is no evidence that such early corrective measures were taken to address the complainant’s situation."
Keywords:
harassment; respect for dignity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 3365
118th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing his harassment complaint and his allegations of denial of justice.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Policy on the Prevention of Harassment at WHO, which entered into force on 7 September 2010, provides in paragraph 8.5 that, “should the RBA or HBA receive an appeal which includes an allegation of harassment […], it shall deal with this aspect of the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Procedure”.
In addition, the Provisional Addendum of 22 November 2010 to the HBA Rules of Procedure (Revision 1) was introduced as a temporary measure applicable until such time as the HBA adapted its Rules of Procedure to the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment.
According to this addendum, if an appeal filed with the HBA contains an allegation of harassment, the Board must refer this aspect of the appeal to the Director of the IOS and hold the appeal in abeyance pending notification of the Director-General’s final decision on the matter. Upon receipt of the Director-General’s decision (including the IOS’ report if applicable), the HBA recommences its consideration of the original appeal. The addendum states that the HBA “shall be guided” by the Director-General’s decision with respect to the aspect of the appeal that concerns harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; rules of the organisation;
Consideration 26
Extract:
"Firm precedent has it that when an official makes allegations of harassment, she or he is entitled to have them dealt with in accordance with the rules and procedures in force (see Judgment 2642, under 8). If an organisation fails to do so, it breaches not only its own policies and rules, but also its duty of care towards the official."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
duty of care; harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 3347
118th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing her harassment complaint and challenges the lawfulness of the internal appeals and investigation procedures.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
due process; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
"It is accepted that once the investigation was started it was completed in a timely manner. However, given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself in a timely manner and the corollary obligation of ensuring that the internal body responsible for investigating and reporting on claims of harassment has the necessary resources to carry out that responsibility (see Judgment 3069, under 12). A delay of five months before the investigation of a claim of harassment is undertaken is unreasonable and, in this case, also contributed to the overall length of the internal appeal process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled that “an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, and that an accumulation of events over time may be cited to support an allegation of harassment” (see Judgment 2100, under 13, and the case law cited therein). Where the allegation of harassment is based on an accumulation of events, the date of the last event is the date for the purpose of calculating the relevant time limits."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment;
Judgment 3337
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Considering that his harassment complaint has not been treated within a reasonable time, the complainant asks the Tribunal to sanction the Organisation for breach of its duty of care.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently stressed the serious nature of allegations of harassment in the workplace and the need for international organisations to investigate such allegations promptly and thoroughly. This is a function of the organisation’s duty of care to its staff members to uphold their dignity. [...] It is in relation to this obligation that the Tribunal, in Judgment 3069, under 12, for example, stated that international organisations have to ensure that an internal body that is charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3069
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment;
Judgment 3318
117th Session, 2014
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision of the Director-General to dismiss his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Consideration 7
Extract:
This question must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of. There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of these acts intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), the main factor being the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate him/her. The Tribunal’s case law has always recognised that an allegation of harassment has to be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, it being understood that an accumulation of events over time may be cited in support of such an allegation (see Judgments 2100, under 13, and 3233, under 6). An unlawful decision or inappropriate behaviour are not enough to prove that harassment has occurred (see Judgment 2861, under 37).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2861, 3233
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 3315
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks damages for the injury arising from breach of due process and institutional harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; decision quashed; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages but has adduced no evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to obtain such damages, notwithstanding that the events in question occurred some years before she filed her complaint. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. There is no ground for the award of exemplary damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the flagrant breach of due process, as well as for the institutional harassment which she sustained. These are grave violations, for which the complainant is accordingly awarded moral damages in the sum of 65,000 United States dollars. She is also awarded 3,000 dollars in costs.
Keywords:
breach; damages; due process; harassment; institutional harassment;
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 3250, under 9, that where a specific intentional example of institutional harassment is not identifiable, a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by an organisation, which compromises the dignity and career of an employee, may represent institutional harassment. The complainant’s receivable grounds, which are set out in consideration 21 of this judgment, and the allegations proffered in support, if proved, can individually and compendiously be bases for institutional harassment. Her appeal, which was filed on 25 April 2010, could not have been out of time when one of her grounds of appeal is, in effect, that she had been and still was being prejudicially denied a fair chance of employment in the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250
Keywords:
harassment; institutional harassment;
Judgment 3314
117th Session, 2014
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law requires an international organization to investigate allegations of harassment linked to the workplace thoroughly, in accordance with due process and the protection of the person accused. The investigation should be prompt and thorough; the facts determined objectively and in their overall context; the law is to be applied correctly and the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed, should not be stigmatised or victimized on that account. (See, for example, Judgment 2973, under 16.) An international organization is also required to ensure that its investigative and internal appeal bodies for this purpose are functioning properly. (See, for example, Judgment 3069, under 12.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973, 3069
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant claims material damages. The Tribunal has stated that a complainant must provide evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to succeed in such a claim. The complainant has not adduced such evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the breaches that the Tribunal found, for which the sum of 25,000 United States dollars is awarded.
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; material damages; prejudice;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; delay; harassment;
Consideration 25
Extract:
[T]he 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. The Organization also breached its duty to provide an efficient internal redress process as a result of inordinate delay in the proceedings before the RBA and the HBA. The complaint is therefore well founded on these grounds and the complainant is entitled to damages.
Keywords:
due process; harassment;
Judgment 3312
117th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that even where there is a single injurious action, an allegation of harassment is a serious matter which must be investigated thoroughly in order to determine whether the words may reasonably be true on the facts as found from the surrounding circumstances. (See Judgment 2553, under 6, and Judgment 2771, under 15.) The Tribunal finds that the [Disciplinary Advisory Board] should have called the available witnesses to assist it to carry out a thorough investigation in the case, particularly given that the facts were contested on the disparate versions given by the parties.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 2771
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; witness;
Judgment 3299
116th Session, 2014
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns a decision to keep in her personal file a warning letter and the non-renewal of her contract.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; non-renewal of contract; performance report;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
