Investigation (860, 784, 898, 902, 903, 904, 906, 907, 913,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Investigation
Total judgments found: 180
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, the verbatim record of the oral evidence gathered during disciplinary proceedings is not deemed strictly necessary. It is sufficient that the person charged in disciplinary proceedings be informed of the precise allegations made against her or him, provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the body in charge of the investigation, and enabled to comment on them (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation; witness;
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;
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 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 4522
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of breach of confidentiality and the refusal to disclose two documents.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
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.
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 4515
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the conversion of his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for harassment undertaken against him.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The suspension provided for under Staff Rule 10.1.3a) is intended to be a measure that may be taken “pending [the outcome of the] investigation” and a staff member subject to it may thus be suspended – whether with or without pay – only until the investigation is completed. As the Tribunal has already had the occasion to hold in relation to the application of similarly worded regulations of another organisation, such a reference to the possibility of suspending an official until the end of the investigation into the facts of which she or he is suspected cannot be interpreted as authorising an extension of that suspension beyond the end of the investigation in question and, in particular, during any disciplinary proceedings subsequently instituted against the official concerned (see Judgment 3880, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords:
investigation; patere legem; suspension;
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 4406
132nd Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of reduction in grade.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; domestic worker; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, as the complainant was provided with unredacted copies of the three requested documents before lodging his appeal with the GBA against the imposition of the disciplinary measure, he was able to rely on this material during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that his right to be heard and his right to due process were not violated.
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation;
Judgment 4379
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administration’s refusal to provide him in a timely manner with unredacted copies of documents and records relied upon by the Internal Oversight Services during the disciplinary investigation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence; investigation;
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 4373
131st Session, 2021
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to issue a written censure against him for breaches of his obligation to protect OPCW confidential information.
Consideration 12
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision to open an investigation into misconduct is not a decision that affects the staff member’s status (see Judgments 4039, consideration 3, 4038, consideration 3, 3236, consideration 12, and 2364, considerations 3 and 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2364, 3236, 4038, 4039
Keywords:
investigation; misconduct; opening of an investigation;
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.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Ethics Office did not err in expanding the scope of its investigation beyond the allegations in the harassment complaint. An organization has the authority and the duty to investigate any indications of related misconduct which it discovers in the course of an investigation on its own or through claims made by staff members. In the present case, the expanded investigation was directly related to the original allegations of misconduct. The complainant has not presented any convincing evidence that the Ethics Office abused its authority or had any conflict of interest.
Keywords:
investigation;
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant argues that he was disadvantaged by two distinct and irregular parallel processes, as he was not informed of the investigation into the harassment complaint against him while he was involved in Mr M.’s performance evaluation process. There is no reason for which the complainant should have been notified that he was the subject of a harassment complaint while he was involved in the performance evaluation process for the staff member who raised the complaint. The Ethics Office acted within its competence in deciding to notify him only after the investigation into his alleged misconduct had begun in order to preserve the evidence and to eliminate the potential for witness tampering or intimidation. His rights were not infringed by the delay in his notification (see, for example, Judgment 3295, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3295
Keywords:
investigation; notification;
Judgment 4344
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close the case on his allegations of harassment as unsubstantiated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding an organization’s duties where harassment complaints are made, the Tribunal has stated, for example, in Judgment 4207, consideration 15, that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members and that given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself. It further stated that the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context and that upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Moreover, a person who makes a harassment complaint has a duty to substantiate that claim. The Tribunal’s case law states 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 and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgment 3871, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3871, 4207
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; investigation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] recalls 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. The Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error in OIOS’s decision to close the complainant’s complaint as unsubstantiated because its assessment was unable to corroborate his allegation of harassment (see, for example, Judgment 4291, consideration 12). In the present case, the Tribunal finds that on the evidence which was before OIOS at the material time it could reasonably have concluded that the complainant’s allegation of harassment was not corroborated. The Tribunal further finds that in the absence of manifest error vitiating OIOS’s conclusion, OIOS did not breach applicable procedure by determining that an investigation was not warranted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4291
Keywords:
harassment; investigation;
Judgment 4313
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, challenges the decision to dismiss her harassment grievance.
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Where the investigation into a harassment complaint is found to be flawed, the Tribunal will ordinarily remit the matter to the organisation concerned so that a new investigation can be conducted. However, the complainant does not wish for it to do so since she left the ILO on health grounds and, in her view, a fresh investigation would cause her additional suffering and might further jeopardise her health. She requests that the Tribunal itself consider the merits of her grievance concerning the alleged harassment. In that regard, she cites Judgment 3170, under 25.
In view of the time which has elapsed since the disputed events, and as the complainant has now left the Organization, it would no longer serve any useful purpose to order the holding of a fresh investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3170
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4311
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to apply the sanction of summary dismissal to him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal has recently ruled that “where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal’s role is not to reweigh the evidence collected by it, as reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error” (see Judgments 3757, under 6, and 3872, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3757, 3872
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; investigation report; judicial review;
Judgment 4308
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant’s second argument is that there were irregularities in the investigation process. The difficulty with the complainant’s pleas in this respect is that they constitute a series of assertions about what should have happened by way of investigative steps, what analysis should have been undertaken and criticism of the conclusions reached at various stages in the process. However, no reference is made in support of those assertions to any normative legal document or the Tribunal’s case law that establishes that such steps should have been taken, the analysis undertaken as suggested or any particular conclusion reached.
Keywords:
burden of proof; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4297
130th Session, 2020
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his formal complaint of harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant suggests he would have been prejudiced by advice he said he received from the OPCW that his challenges to the appointment of the investigators did not involve a reviewable administrative decision and thus, it is said, he waived the right to file a complaint before the Tribunal in relation to the decision concerning the manner in which the investigation was proceeding. The submission fails to recognise that a decision concerning the composition of an investigating panel is not a final administrative decision amenable to review by the Tribunal but merely a step in the process leading to a final administrative decision and may, as such, be challenged before the Tribunal only in the context of a complaint impugning the final decision (see, for example, Judgment 4131, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4131
Keywords:
administrative decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; step in the procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant’s submissions [...] essentially ask the Tribunal to appraise the evidence presented in the OIOS Preliminary Assessment and in the Internal Audit Investigation Report, and to rule that the Appeals Committee and the Director General have erred in their assessments of the evidence. In Judgment 3593, consideration 12, the Tribunal stated as follows:
“[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
(See also Judgments 4091, consideration 17, 3882, consideration 13, and 3682, consideration 8.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 4091
Keywords:
evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Consideration 14
Extract:
Essentially, the “flaws” [the complainant] has identified are that they did not agree with his perceptions. He has not submitted any evidence that the investigators “failed to obtain, refused to accept or ignored relevant evidence, took account of irrelevant evidence or misconstrued the evidence” (see Judgment 3447, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; witness;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
