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 3269
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that she was submitted to harassment and denounces flaws in the inquiry relating to her harassment allegations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint dismissed; delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply;
Judgment 3250
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
"While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."
Keywords:
harassment; injury; institutional harassment; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that intent is not a necessary element of harassment and, in this case, it is not a single episode which creates the problem, but instead it is the accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. As such, the JAAB’s finding that “the long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Office […] compromised [the complainant’s] dignity and career” is well founded and the Tribunal is of the opinion that this administrative wrongdoing can be defined as institutional harassment."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; harassment; injury; institutional harassment; organisation's duties; professional injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3242
115th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the investigation report made pursuant to her allegations of harassment on the ground that it was procedurally flawed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that her allegation of harassment is substantiated because she felt harassed by the general attitude and specific actions of Dr K., and because her illness was a consequence of the harassment. However, proof of harassment insofar as it is based on the perceptions of a complainant, requires the staff member to demonstrate that the contested conduct could objectively be reasonably regarded as harassment. It is the Tribunal’s view that the Headquarters Grievance Panel was correct in not treating the medical records as proof of harassment. The medical records prove the illness exists but do not prove the cause. The illness by itself does not prove harassment. The complainant’ allegation is therefore unfounded.
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 3233
115th Session, 2013
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that she was the victim of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgment 2861, under 37). The question as to whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see Judgment 2553, under 6). There is no need to prove that the perpetrator of the acts in question intended to engage in harassment (see Judgment 2524, under 25), and the Tribunal’s case law has always required that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific acts, 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 Judgment 2100, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2100, 2524, 2553, 2861
Keywords:
burden of proof; conduct; definition; flaw; harassment; official;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discrimination; harassment;
Judgment 3221
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges harassment and abuse of power on the part of the Organization.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3215
115th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Reference is made to decisions of this Tribunal which make it clear that an organisation is under a duty to investigate claims of harassment promptly and bona fide (see Judgments 2552, 2654 and 2910).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2654, 2910
Keywords:
claim; harassment; investigation; time limit;
Judgment 3192
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and not to renew her contract as linked to the harassment she allegedly experienced.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3174
114th Session, 2013
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the implicit rejection of his request for moral damages for alleged harassment and abuse of authority.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2203, 2389, 3009
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint dismissed; harassment; misuse of authority; moral injury;
Judgment 3173
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the refusal to grant her compensation for an illness which she considers as attributable to the performance of her official duties.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The approach of the Organization, which is a reflection of the position adopted by the Managing Director, involves an assumption which would not, in all cases, be correct. The assumption is that work-related stress said by an employee to be the result of abuse and harassment, can only arise if, as an objective fact, there has been abuse and harassment. Such an approach takes no account of the possibility that stress can be the product of perceptions and not reality. Put slightly differently, an employee may be exposed to conduct which, viewed objectively, would not be characterised as abuse and harassment. But it does not follow that exposure to that conduct could not induce work-related stress in an employee who perceived that conduct as abusive and harassing. For this reason the answer to the question that was to be considered by the independent panel, i.e. whether the complainant had been subjected to “constant harassment and abuse” by her supervisor would not necessarily have answered the question raised by the complainant’s claim for compensation considered by the [Advisory Board on Compensation Claims]. Her claim raised the question of whether her supervisor’s conduct caused a stress-related illness not whether his conduct, viewed objectively, could be characterised as abuse and harassment."
Keywords:
advisory body; compensation; harassment; injury; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment 3170
114th Session, 2013
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that she was the victim of harassment and that the investigation thereon was flawed.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3010, 3131
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; harassment; inquiry; investigation; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Consideration 21
Extract:
[I]t is clear from the wording of the [...] terms of reference that harassment covered all behaviour “the purpose or effect” of which was to impair the complainant’s working conditions in a manner likely to undermine her fundamental rights or dignity. This definition therefore encompassed not only intentional harassment, but also harassment which, irrespective of the perpetrator’s intent, could objectively result from acts which were perceived by the victim as undermining her fundamental rights or dignity (for a case where a staff regulation defining harassment in a similar manner was applied, see Judgment 2370, under 8 and 10). Moreover, this is a similar definition to that employed by the Tribunal when it has to determine the existence of harassment in cases where the scope of this notion is not otherwise specified in the legal texts applicable to the dispute (see Judgment 2524, under 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
Keywords:
harassment;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; defamation; harassment;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"It has been accepted by this Tribunal that ultimately the question of whether conduct constitutes harassment is a matter of fact involving consideration of all the circumstances (see Judgment 2553)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553
Keywords:
harassment; interpretation; judicial review;
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3164
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; harassment; permanent appointment; transfer;
Judgment 3155
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to reject his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2881
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment;
Judgment 3149
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; executive head; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3144
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The question as to whether any particular act, or a series of acts, amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the deciding factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances (see Judgment 2553, under 6). In the instant case, it must be found that when the Joint Grievance Panel drew up the report which formed the basis of the Director General’s decision to close the case, thus rejecting equally the arguments of both the complainant and her former direct supervisor, it did not commit any error open to censure by the Tribunal in its evaluation of the facts.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553
Keywords:
harassment; judicial review;
Judgment 3142
113th Session, 2012
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 10
Extract:
As the complainant does not directly challenge the findings of the ad hoc board, it is unnecessary to say more than that, in the absence of findings as to the specific conduct involved, a finding that a supervisor neither “knew [n]or ought to have known” that his conduct was unwelcome, even though that conduct is “assumed” to be improper and was directed to a subordinate who found it unwelcome, raises more questions than it answers. More particularly is that so as the test is not whether a person ought to have known, as stated by the board, but whether he “ought reasonably to have known” – a test that requires an objective evaluation of the conduct involved. However, it must be noted that the board did not find that the complainant made false allegations. Indeed and although it did not find that her claims were true, it did not find that any of them were false. And subject only to the question whether her supervisor knew or ought reasonably to have known that his conduct was unwelcome, his alleged statements as to the complainant’s clothing and appearance were capable of being categorised as sexual harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; sexual harassment;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he organisation had a duty to investigate the complainant’s claim of harassment independently of any question as to the renewal of her contract. Indeed, to make a staff member’s contract renewal dependent on the outcome of an investigation of his or her claim of harassment is a clear disincentive to the making of a claim, even if the claim is justified.
Keywords:
harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3096
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 3089
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; complaint dismissed; decision quashed; harassment; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 36
Extract:
"It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment. That duty extends to both the staff member alleging harassment and the person against whom a complaint is made (see Judgment 2642, under 8). [...] Further, the duty is a duty to investigate claims of harassment "promptly and thoroughly" (see Judgment 2642, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2642
Keywords:
claim; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Consideration 43
Extract:
[I]t appears that there is no definition of harassment within the Staff Regulations or the current Collective Agreement. However, the definition that appeared in the former Collective Agreement reflects what is generally accepted as constituting harassment. Accordingly, it is convenient to refer to aspects of that definition. So far as is presently relevant, that definition provided:
“The expression ‘harassment’ encompasses any act, conduct, statement or request which is unwelcome […] and could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be regarded as harassing behaviour of a discriminatory, offensive, humiliating, intimidating or violent nature or an intrusion of privacy.”
The definition indicated that “harassment” included “bullying/mobbing” which was defined to include:
“(ii) persistent negative attacks on personal or professional performance without reason or legitimate authority;
[…]
(iv) abusing a position of power by persistently undermining a […] person’s work […];
(v) unreasonable or inappropriate monitoring of […] performance”.
Keywords:
collective agreement; harassment;
Consideration 49
Extract:
The complainant also contends that she was treated in an offensive and humiliating manner by reason of the failure of the Director of ILO/AIDS to respond to a number of her e-mails, or to respond in sufficient time so as to enable action to be taken. In this regard, she refers to the failure to respond in time to requests for the other members of her team to participate in meetings. She also refers to the failure to respond to her e-mails requesting a decision on certain publications. The defendant answers these allegations on the basis of the Director’s busy schedule and refers to the Tribunal’s statement in Judgment 2745, under 19, that “conduct that […] [is] the result of […] mere inefficiency [does] not constitute harassment”. However, this conduct has to be assessed in the overall context of the treatment afforded to the complainant, and when so assessed it is more probable than not that the failure to respond to the complainant’s e-mails was the result of the Director’s disdain for her work and that of the RPAU.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745
Keywords:
harassment; humiliation;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay in internal procedure; harassment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason in principle why the actions of a subordinate cannot constitute harassment of his or her supervisor, particularly where those actions consist of persistent unfounded allegations of harassment. However, just as the actions of a supervisor that serve a legitimate managerial or supervisory function do not constitute harassment, so, too, actions taken in good faith by a subordinate that serve the function of protecting his or her legitimate interests do not constitute harassment."
Keywords:
good faith; harassment; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[A]n international organisation has an obligation to ensure that an internal body charged with investigating and reporting on claims of harassment is properly functioning."
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
