Judgment No. 3996

• Organization: Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom)
• Date: 26.06.2018
• Original: English
• Judges: Barbagallo, Hansen, Rawlins
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

The complaints are dismissed, as are the Commission’s counterclaims for costs.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

transfer; extension of contract; harassment; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1

Extract:

The complainant has filed four complaints against four decisions of the Executive Secretary. As the facts leading to the four complaints overlap, it is convenient to deal with them in one judgment and to join the four complaints as the parties have requested [...].

Keywords

joinder

Consideration 3

Extract:

The complainant applies for oral hearings [...]. As the written submissions are sufficient to make a reasoned decision, oral hearings are unnecessary. Thus, the Tribunal denies the application for oral hearings.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 4B

Extract:

[T]he complainant bears the burden of proving malice, bad faith or misuse of authority (see Judgment 3743, under 12, and the judgments cited therein).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3743

Keywords

burden of proof; misuse of authority; bad faith; abuse of power

Consideration 4J

Extract:

[T]he Executive Secretary’s discretionary power with respect to a transfer must necessarily yield to the objective appearance of a conflict of interest; even more, considering that the complainant herself had requested the written commitment, and that the conflict of interest cannot be superseded by a commitment or an agreement.

Keywords

transfer; discretion; conflict of interest

Consideration 7B

Extract:

[T]he Tribunal held (in Judgment 2524) that harassment and mobbing do not require any intent on the part of the actors. In that Judgment, the Tribunal stated: “Harassment and mobbing do not require any [...] intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice [...].”

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524

Keywords

harassment

Consideration 8

Extract:

Regarding the Commission’s counterclaims for costs, the Tribunal finds that in the circumstances, considering the complainant’s apparent perception of the facts, the complaints cannot be considered vexatious, and therefore the counterclaims for costs should be dismissed.

Keywords

counterclaim