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 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;
Judgment 3099
112th Session, 2012
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he obligation to treat staff members with dignity and the duty of good faith required, at the very least, that there be an accurate record of the interviews, which could have been achieved by, for example, the making of a transcript by a competent stenographer."
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; recording; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3097
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; inquiry; investigation; short-term; termination of employment;
Judgment 3094
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal makes the following observation. The complainant’s claims that she is entitled to participate in the investigation and that due process entitles her to information about the course of the investigation are equally without merit.
Keywords:
investigation; right to information;
Judgment 3083
112th Session, 2012
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[A]n investigation must be conducted in such a way as to ensure that there is an opportunity for the staff member concerned to test the evidence and answer the charge made. In the case of summary dismissal, the decision-maker must be satisfied to the requisite standard that misconduct has occurred as charged and, also, that the misconduct is such as to justify summary dismissal."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; right to reply; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an accusation of harassment requires that “an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused”. Furthermore, “[i]ts duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context […], that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account […]” (see Judgment 2973, under 16, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2973
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 2973
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"By failing to deal with the informal complaints in a manner consistent with its own policy, by failing to conduct an investigation in a timely manner when a formal complaint was filed and then by terminating the investigation, WHO breached its duty of care toward the complainant and caused her serious injury."
Keywords:
breach; claim; duty of care; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; written rule;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Organisation's failure to fully investigate allegations of harassment.
"[T]he long delay seriously compromised the integrity of the investigative process. In addition to the diminishing recollection of events with the passage of time, potential witnesses are no longer available. As well, with the passage of time, it may be that those individuals in the Administration responsible for ensuring the protection of the staff member concerned are no longer with the Organization. If so, this would effectively preclude any accountability for the failure to protect a staff member if a finding of harassment were to be made."
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; breach; delay; evidence; expert inquiry; harassment; inquiry; investigation; lack of evidence; liability; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2910
109th Session, 2010
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant was entitled to have her grievance dealt with in accordance with the policy and the procedures laid down in [...] the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Agency's failure to do so constitutes not only a breach of its own policy and rules but, as well, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant. In Judgment 2636 the Tribunal pointed out that this duty includes the obligation to ensure that allegations of harassment are "properly and promptly investigated". The Agency seeks to avoid responsibility for the delay that occurred [until] the complainant [...] enquired about the status of her request for investigation. However, it was for the Agency, not the complainant, to ensure that the matter was properly and promptly investigated. Moreover, and even if informal methods of resolution are to be explored, it is important that the facts be promptly ascertained to avoid any possibility that an investigation will be compromised by delay."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
Keywords:
case law; delay; inquiry; investigation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2786
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It is not open to an international organisation to justify a decision by conducting further enquiries after the internal appeal proceedings have been concluded, much less by conducting enquiries into a charge of misconduct that was not relied upon as the basis for rejecting an internal appeal. So to do is not only to deprive a person of his/her right to be heard in answer to a charge of misconduct, including by testing the evidence against him/her, but also to render the appeal proceedings futile."
Keywords:
breach; decision; evidence; grounds; inquiry; internal appeal; investigation; organisation's duties; refusal; right to reply; serious misconduct;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"While internal investigative reports cannot be the sole basis for disciplinary action against a staff member, they may nevertheless serve as a basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings if they yield indications of irregularities justifying this (see, in this respect, Judgment 2365, under 5(e)). When the organisation concerned initiates proceedings in the light of such reports, it is not itself obliged to repeat all the investigations recorded in these documents, but must simply ensure that the person in question is given the opportunity to reply to the findings they contain so as to respect the rights of defence."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2365
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary charges; disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; right to reply;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses (for example, Judgments 999 and 2475), to object to evidence (for example, Judgment 2468) or to have a verbatim record of the evidence (for example, Judgment 1384). These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses' testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out to the Assistant Director-General and, later, the Director of the Human Resources Management Division, inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...]. In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the complainant had and exercised a right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. There is no suggestion that he was in any way circumscribed in the way his appeal was conducted. Accordingly, the process, viewed in its entirety from the making of the subordinate's harassment complaint until the Committee reported to the Director-General, was one that satisfied the requirements of due process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 999, 1384, 2468, 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; right to reply; testimony;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
Judgment 2741
105th Session, 2008
International Olive Oil Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asserts that he was deliberately excluded from the decisive initial phase of the investigation, which made it impossible for him to prevent any tampering with the equipment seized in his office. He argues that because the search of his computer equipment was carried out in secrecy, his “worker’s dignity” and his right to privacy were unjustifiably violated which, in his view, renders the evidence thus gathered inadmissible. […] Any worker has the right to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference by an employer in his or her private life or correspondence. Any interference in a worker’s private life ordered exceptionally by an employer to safeguard the normal and secure functioning of a company’s information technology system must be undertaken in the presence of the worker or his or her representatives. If that is not possible owing to the urgency of the situation, all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure that the accessing of the worker’s personal files remains within the bounds of what is required for company security, that any unjustified disclosure or dissemination of personal information is avoided and that any tampering with the computer equipment is prevented. In addition, the person concerned must be informed without delay of the investigations conducted and given all reasonable means to assert his or her rights. These basic principles are applicable to employment relations within international organisations.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to privacy;
Judgment 2698
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he measure of suspension constitutes [...] an interim measure which in no way prejudges the decision on the merits regarding a possible disciplinary measure, but which is designed to safeguard the interests of the Organization pending the outcome of an investigation to ascertain whether the accusations have any substance or not."
Keywords:
definition; disciplinary measure; inquiry; investigation; organisation's interest; provisional decision; purpose; suspensive action;
Judgment 2654
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO recognise that she has been subjected to moral harassment and acknowledge all the repercussions this has had on her "human dignity and professional life". The Organization asks the Tribunal to find that there is no factual or legal basis to the complainant's claim that she notified the Administration of a case of moral harassment. The Tribunal considers "that the complainant did accuse her supervisor of harassment, and that the Organization, which was then under an obligation to initiate an objective inquiry into the validity of her accusations, failed to do so and has merely regretted the fact that it held no investigations.
By failing to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of such serious accusations, the defendant breached both its duty of care towards one of its staff members and its duty of good governance, thereby depriving the complainant of her right to be given an opportunity to prove her allegations."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; career; claim; condition; consequence; duty of care; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; working conditions; working relations;
Judgment 2642
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In Judgment 2552 the Tribunal pointed out that an accusation of harassment 'requires that an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused'. Its duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgment 1376)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552
Keywords:
due process; good faith; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; safeguard;
Judgment 2636
103rd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The terms of Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal [...] dictate that various [...] claims for relief are not receivable. The claim that the Tribunal make appropriate orders to enable investigation of the complainant's allegations by the Swiss authorities falls into this category. The complainant's rights are those that derive from the terms of his appointment, the applicable Staff Regulations and those general legal principles recognised by the Tribunal as applicable to all international civil servants. None of these confer any right on the complainant to rely on Swiss law in his claims against WIPO and, consequently, there is no power in the Tribunal to make any order in that regard."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
applicable law; claim; competence of tribunal; contract; domestic law; general principle; iloat statute; inquiry; investigation; official; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2605
102nd Session, 2007
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that informing a person in advance that an investigation into certain allegations will be undertaken is not a requisite element of due process. Although notification prior to the start of an investigation may well be the preferred course of action, in certain circumstances alerting an individual to the fact that an investigation is to be undertaken may well compromise the investigation. As well, it may be through a routine review or audit that irregularities are encountered. It is once irregularities have been identified that the individual must be informed of the allegations of irregularities with sufficient precision to enable him to respond adequately; he should then be given an opportunity to respond, in particular to defend himself against the allegations, and to make such further response as the circumstances require prior to any conclusions being reached."
Keywords:
duty to inform about the investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
