|
|
 |
|
|
Manifest error (841,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Manifest error
Total judgments found: 15
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent also has it that where there is an investigation by an investigative body prior to 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 4106, consideration 6, and 3593, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 4106
Keywords:
evidence; investigation; investigative body; judicial review; manifest error; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.
Keywords:
abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) 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, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). When a specific procedure is prescribed by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules must be applied correctly. The Tribunal has also held that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the person implicated and to give that person the opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). It is, however, well settled that a staff member alleging harassment does not need to demonstrate, nor does the person or body evaluating the claim, that the facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that harassment occurred (see, in this connection, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
The Tribunal recalls, furthermore, 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 many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, in this respect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 20
Extract:
As a rule, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of an expert such as an actuary (see Judgments 3360, under 4 and 5, 3538, under 11 to 15, and 4134, under 26). However, since the complainant alleges blatant errors, the Tribunal will examine her objections.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3360, 3538, 4134
Keywords:
actuary; expert inquiry; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 4106
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to apply to him the sanction of discharge.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3872, under 2, “[c]onsistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, 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 Judgment 3757, under 6)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3757, 3872
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3831, consideration 28, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 4091
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
“[...] that it 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 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;
Judgment 3872
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Considerations 2 and 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that decisions which are made in disciplinary cases are within the discretionary authority of the executive head of an international organization and are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will interfere only if the decision is tainted by a procedural or substantive flaw (see Judgment 3297, under 8). Moreover, 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 Judgment 3757, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal determines that the complainant’s plea that there was a conspiracy against him is unfounded as he has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate it. The Tribunal recalls that WHO bears the burden of proof in a case such as this. However, inasmuch as the Tribunal will not reweigh the evidence, its approach when the issue of the burden of proof is raised is to determine whether a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could properly have been made (see Judgment 3649, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3297, 3649, 3757
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; judicial review; manifest error;
Judgment 3831
124th Session, 2017
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.
Consideration 28
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3597, under 2, and the cases cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3597
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3757
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him summarily.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]t is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, 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 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; inquiry; investigation; manifest error;
Judgment 3597
121st Session, 2016
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the relief she was awarded as a result of a harassment complaint she filed with the Federation.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Tribunal notes that as an administrative body the Appeals Commission has the authority to review the details of appeals and, when necessary, to recommend a precise remedy. According to well settled case law, the findings of such an internal body warrant deference. Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, for example, Judgments 2295, under 10, 3400, under 6, 3439, under 7, and 3447, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3439, 3447
Keywords:
internal appeals body; manifest error;
Judgment 3589
121st Session, 2016
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns PAHO’s rejection of his request for reclassification of his post at the P.4 level.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Much of the complainant’s legal argument addresses how he believes the HRM Classification Team erred in its approach. For example the complainant challenges the basis upon which the HRM Classification Team rejected the suitability of the comparator post (Post .0231) he had advanced in support of the reclassification of his post. But issues such as these are the essence of the discretionary evaluation undertaken in the process of classifying or reclassifying a post. They are not issues with which the Tribunal engages unless there is some manifest error of substance in that process of evaluation."
Keywords:
manifest error; post classification;
Judgment 3439
119th Session, 2015
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision to terminate his appointment after the abolition of his post, as the Tribunal found that, due to the Organisation's failings, he had lost a valuable opportunity to be reassigned to another post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]t is desirable to refer to the approach taken by the Tribunal to findings of fact made by internal appeal bodies such as the HBA. As is evident from the Tribunal’s discussion in Judgment 2295, under 10, it is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. Moreover the findings of such an internal appeal body warrant deference. In addition, where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295
Keywords:
evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error; mistake of fact;
Judgment 2295
96th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before the Joint Appeals Board 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 the Board is entitled to considerable deference. [...] Where a body such as the Board has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation thereof, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error."
Keywords:
disregard of essential fact; evidence; internal appeals body; judicial review; limits; manifest error; mistake of fact; report; testimony;
|
|
|
|
|
