Institutional harassment (820,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Institutional harassment
Total judgments found: 14

• Judgment 4703

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case arising from his reports of alleged misconduct and to reject his request to be provided with an unredacted version of the final investigation report.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The IAEA submits that the complainant’s […] ground concerning institutional harassment is a new claim that should have been raised internally and is therefore irreceivable. The complainant argues that his allegation of institutional harassment is a new plea that does not extend the scope of the claims already submitted during the internal appeal process. The Tribunal notes that the complainant has put forward a plethora of allegations of institutional harassment in his previous complaints before the Tribunal. The complainant’s allegation of institutional harassment is obviously a new claim and is not a new plea that merely serves to strengthen the legal argument by providing an additional reason to support the claim. Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4522, consideration 3, 4467, consideration 5, and 3945, consideration 4). As the complainant did not raise the issue of institutional harassment in his request for review […], nor in his appeal to the JAB, his claim is therefore irreceivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3945, 4467, 4522
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment; new claim;
  

  
  
  

• 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 4345

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to extend his temporary reassignment.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, 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, Judgments 3250, 4111 and 4243).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 4111, 4243
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4286

  
  130th Session, 2020
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim of retaliation/harassment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; harassment; institutional harassment; retaliation;
  

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  The Appeal Board’s approach to the substance of the complainant’s allegations of retaliation and reprisals, endorsed by the Director General in the impugned decision, was flawed on two bases. In the first place, its statement that the complainant had only substantiated two of the incidents upon which she relied was inaccurate. Her rejoinder in the Appeal Board’s proceedings shows that she substantiated other alleged incidents. In the second place, the Board did not appreciate that although it was not required to find the facts, that being within the purview of the IOD, it was nevertheless required to weigh the detailed evidence (including the rebuttals) which the IOD had adduced in its investigations (see Judgment 4085, under 15). As a result, the Board failed to consider whether there was an accumulation of repeated events which deeply and adversely affected the complainant’s dignity and career objectives. It also failed to consider whether there was a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions by the Organization that compromised her dignity and career constituting institutional harassment (see, for example, Judgment 3250, under 9). The Board therefore did not consider all relevant facts and drew wrong conclusions from the facts. These failures constitute an error of law (see, for example, Judgment 2616, under 24), as well as a violation of the complainant’s right to effective appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3424, under 11(a) and (b)).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2616, 3250, 3424, 4085
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; institutional harassment; internal appeals body; mistake of law; right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4243

  
  129th Session, 2020
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.

  Consideration 25

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, a long series of examples of mismanagement or omissions which have compromised the dignity and career of an employee may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9).
  In the instant case, although a number of pleas made by the complainant have been rejected, the Tribunal has noted in the foregoing many examples of mismanagement [...].
  [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a series of errors of management or omissions is not, in itself, sufficient to establish institutional harassment. Such errors and omissions must also have compromised the official’s dignity and career prospects.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3250, 3315
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4111

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  It is true that a long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4110

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4109

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4108

  
  127th Session, 2019
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; institutional harassment;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [A] long series of examples of mismanagement and omissions that compromises the dignity and career objectives of a complainant can constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, consideration 22, and 3250, consideration 9). However, the only elements which can be said to constitute harassment are those for which there is no reasonable explanation (see Judgments 4038, consideration 18, 3447, consideration 9, and 2524, consideration 25).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3250, 3315, 3447, 4038
  

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4085

  
  127th Session, 2019
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her harassment grievance.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  The complainant argues that the IAOD and the JGP erred because they did not call witnesses whom she named or whose names arose during the course of the investigation. It is however apparent that those persons did not actually witness the incidents that were complained of, and, in any event, the relevant allegations identified in consideration 14 of this judgment did not amount to harassment. They were actions taken in a tense working environment in the context of supervisory responsibility pursuant to paragraph 6 of Office Instruction No. 17/2006. The incidents cannot be a basis on which to find institutional harassment and the complainant provides no evidence of actions or inactions on the part of the Administration that would constitute institutional harassment. Moreover, the evidence which she provides does not show that there was a lack of good faith that constituted gross negligence, bias or abuse of authority, as she contends.

  Keywords:

  institutional harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4039

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  As the Organization recalls, according to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to decide whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
  However [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  Considerations 5-16

  Extract:

  In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since the Tribunal’s case law has established that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
  Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
  The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
  The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
  In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation that has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 2524, 2594, 2771, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4038

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he is the victim of institutional harassment and discrimination, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the official’s status (see Judgments 3236, under 12, and 2364, under 3 and 4). The purpose of such an investigation, which may be compared – in terms of criminal justice – to the investigation that precedes possible criminal proceedings, is not to gather evidence which can be used against the person concerned, but to provide the competent authority with information enabling it to determine whether the opening of a disciplinary procedure is warranted. Since it does not affect the complainant’s legal situation or alter her or his status, the decision to open an investigation does not constitute an “administrative decision” which may be impugned before the Tribunal (see the aforementioned Judgment 2364, under 3 and 4).
  However, [...] the complainant submits that this allegation, combined with others, is proof of harassment. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the opening of the investigation is in itself sufficient to establish the existence of institutional harassment.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  Considerations 5-18

  Extract:

  In principle, allegations concerning irregularities in an investigation must be brought in the context of a challenge to the final decision arising from the investigation proceedings (see, in this connection, Judgment 3236, under 11). However, in this case, there was no disciplinary decision, since the investigation showed that the allegations against the complainant were unfounded. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the complainant submits that these flaws themselves constitute proof of institutional harassment, the Tribunal must examine them, since the Tribunal’s case law has established that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of (see, for example, Judgment 3871, under 12). [...]
  Be that as it may, the Tribunal must determine whether all the elements examined above amount to institutional harassment.
  The JAAB and the complainant share the view that, “taken as a whole”, the elements in question lead to the conclusion that there was institutional harassment. It is correct to say that a long series of acts and omissions evidencing mismanagement which have compromised a complainant’s dignity and career prospects may constitute institutional harassment (see Judgments 3315, under 22, and 3250, under 9), but this was not the case here. As explained above, most of the matters on which the complainant relies cannot be accepted. There was a reasonable explanation for these elements and thus they cannot be said to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3447, under 9, and 2524, under 25). Only two procedural flaws have been established, one of which is partly the consequence of the other: first, the flaw resulting from the extension of the investigation to cover a new allegation differing from that on which it was initiated and, secondly, the inordinate length of the investigation which was partly the result of that.
  The Tribunal will examine the ILO’s definition of harassment in order to determine whether these two flaws amount to an act of harassment (see Judgment 2594, under 18). [...]
  In this case, it must be recalled that an investigation is not disciplinary in nature, but that its sole purpose is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure (see Judgments 2771, under 15, and 2364, under 3). In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Uniform Guidelines for Investigations, both inculpatory and exculpatory information must be examined. The investigation clarified matters with the result that the complainant was not charged with any wrongdoing. He was cleared of any suspicion and his career has not been hampered. This shows that, at all events, the Organization had no wish to harm or harass him. An investigation which has been opened lawfully cannot be termed harassment. Admittedly, the unlawful extension of the investigation, which had already been inadmissibly delayed, made it unduly long. However, it is well settled that an unlawful decision or unsatisfactory conduct is not sufficient in itself to constitute harassment (see Judgments 3233, under 6, and 2861, under 37).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271, 2364, 2524, 2594, 2861, 3233, 3236, 3250, 3315, 3447, 3871
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary procedure; inquiry; institutional harassment; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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 keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; institutional harassment; organisation's duties;