|
|
 |
|
|
Motivation of final decision (891,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Motivation of final decision
Total judgments found: 77
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4894
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2009.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In substance, the Vice-President of DG4 has failed to motivate the impugned decision […], which departed from the recommendation of the Internal Appeals Committee. He is legally obliged to do so (see, for example, Judgments 4772, consideration 12, 4762, consideration 8, and 4598, consideration 12). For this reason alone, the impugned decision should be set aside, as the complainant seeks.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598, 4762, 4772
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4877
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his temporary appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]n his rejoinder, the complainant criticises the Director-General for failing to explain in her decision [...] why she had not followed the dissenting opinions expressed by two members of the Appeals Board. But the Tribunal recalls that the simple reference made by the Director-General to the recommendation of the Appeals Board is in itself adequate motivation (see, to that effect, Judgment 4147, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4147
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4865
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 7
Extract:
In the present case, the complainant argues that the impugned decision should be set aside because there was a dissenting opinion by a member of the Global Board of Appeal (GBA) who found that there was a breach of the selection procedure, but the Executive Director accepted the opinion of the majority of the GBA without explaining why she rejected the dissenting member’s recommendation. The argument is unfounded. In the case leading to Judgment 2347, the author of the impugned decision did not adequately explain why he rejected the Appeals Board’s recommendations. As a result, the complainant in that case was not in a position to make an informed decision whether or not to have recourse to the Tribunal and of the bases for challenging the impugned decision. In the present case, however, the Director General accepted the conclusions and recommendation of the majority of the GBA, and the reasons on which the majority reached those conclusions were fully explained in its report, thereby enabling the complainant to make the informed decision. This aligns with the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 10 of Judgment 4147 that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself. There is no authority that requires an executive head of an organization having accepted the opinion of the majority of an internal appeal body to motivate or explain the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the minority. Even assuming that there was case law requiring that to be done, on the facts of this case, there was no need for the Executive Director to explain why she rejected the conclusions of the minority. It was clearly implicit in her acceptance of the opinion of the majority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4147
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 6
Extract:
“[W]hen the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself” (see, for example, Judgments 4662, consideration 15, and 4307, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4307, 4662
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4832
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of demotion by two grades.
Considerations 31-33
Extract:
In Judgment 3969, consideration 10, referring to Judgment 3862, consideration 20, the Tribunal recalled the overarching legal principles that apply in terms of motivation of a decision when the executive head of an organization elects not to follow the recommendation of an internal advisory body:
“[...] ‘The executive head of an international organisation is not bound to follow a recommendation of any internal appeal body nor bound to adopt the reasoning of that body. However an executive head who departs from a recommendation of such a body must state the reasons for disregarding it and must motivate the decision actually reached. In addition, according to the well-settled case law of the Tribunal, the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove allegations of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed (see, for example, Judgment 3649, consideration 14). [...]’
These observations, as they relate to reports and conclusions of internal appeal bodies, are equally applicable to reports and opinions of a Disciplinary Committee.”
The constant case law of the Tribunal confirms that an organization must provide a proper and clear motivation when it does not follow the opinion and recommendation of an internal appeal body to the detriment of the employee concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). In Judgment 3161, consideration 7, the Tribunal recalled that it is necessary for the executive head of an organization to explain the basis on which she or he arrived at a different conclusion than that of the internal advisory body. In this regard, it is not enough to simply identify flaws in the reasoning or procedures of the advisory body, but reasons must be provided for the opposite conclusion reached by the executive head.
In the impugned decision, the Secretary-General offered no explanation to support his conclusion that he was maintaining a demotion by two grades notwithstanding the recommendation of the Appeal Board to refer the matter for re-evaluation to the JAC’s Disciplinary Chamber. Besides stating that this was his conclusion that such sanction was proportionate and appropriate under the circumstances, no more reasons were offered. This fell short of the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law that indicates that a complainant must be made aware of this motivation in order to be able to conduct herself or himself accordingly and properly respond (see, for example, Judgment 1817, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 3161, 3649, 3862, 3969, 4062
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision;
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 12
Extract:
Secondly, it appears, as the Organisation acknowledges in its reply, that the investigation report was also not provided, either in full or even in anonymized form, to the Joint Committee for Disputes before it gave its opinion on 27 February 2020, which in itself also constitutes a flaw since the Committee must be able under all circumstances to give a full and informed opinion (see, in this respect, Judgments 4471, consideration 14, and 4167, consideration 3).
The fact that the members of the Committee considered unanimously that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded is irrelevant in this respect, since the Committee could have given an even more reasoned opinion on the merits had it been provided with the final investigation report.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4167, 4471
Keywords:
final decision; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; direct appeal to tribunal; harassment; internal remedies exhausted; investigation report; motivation of final decision; procedural flaw; reasonable time; right to information;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal observes, thirdly, that, although the two matters outlined above were, among others, specifically noted by the Joint Committee for Disputes in reaching the unanimous conclusion, in its opinion issued on 24 January 2022, that the complainant’s internal complaint was well-founded, they were not in any way addressed in the reasons given in the Director General’s final decision of 12 May 2022.
Accordingly, there are grounds for considering that the reasons given for this decision are also not adequate, within the meaning of the Tribunal’s relevant case law (see Judgments 4700, consideration 4, 4598, consideration 12, 4400, consideration 10, and 4062, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062, 4400, 4598, 4700
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Still with respect to the decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019, the complainant considers, secondly, that they are based on spurious grounds. The purportedly substantial reorganization of the NTS Division which the complainant headed was purely fictitious, his functions were not in fact abolished as had been indicated to him at the meeting of 5 July 2019, and no other staff member in his Division was really disadvantaged by the introduction of the new Technology Division. He also considers that a reorganization due to be finalized in September 2019 could not, under any circumstances, give rise to a decision to abolish his functions on 5 July 2019, that is more than three months in advance. Accordingly, the complainant takes the view that he was never afforded the opportunity to ascertain the real reasons for which his functions were abolished, as the Joint Committee for Disputes also unanimously observed. In this regard, the complainant refutes each of the various grounds relied on in turn by Eurocontrol, whether in the decisions of 5 July 2019 or in its written submissions to the Tribunal, and notes a contradiction between the grounds set forth successively by the Organisation.
The Tribunal notes that in the memorandum of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019, it was firstly stated that following the reorganization of the Agency, the NTS Division would be abolished, as would the complainant’s functions. It was indicated secondly, in an email of 8 August 2019, that following the regrouping of all of the Agency’s information technology activities, the role of Head of the new Technology Division had become a substantially different role from that of Head of the NTS Division, in particular because that new division was approximately three times the size of the former NTS Division. Thirdly, the Agency argued that the organizational changes introduced meant that new skills were required for managerial positions, and that the “leadership” style desired and required by the Director General no longer matched the profile of the complainant, who was more a technical expert than a “leader”.
Thus, the specific justifications given concerning the various decisions of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019 changed as time went by, in line with his criticisms. The initial outright abolition of his functions became a substantial modification of the duties to be performed and, finally, turned into a modification of the “leadership” style required of the incumbents of managerial posts. This is all the more regrettable given that the complainant clearly stated, and this is not disputed by Eurocontrol, on the one hand, that from 2014 to 2017 he had headed the NTS Division, which already consisted of some 150 staff members and in which all of the Agency’s information technology services were grouped together before it was decided to split them, and, in July 2019, to regroup them again, and, on the other hand, that his various performance evaluation reports, in particular those relating to this period, had always been very positive, in particular with regard to his “leadership” capacity.
It follows that the various grounds on which the above-mentioned decisions are purported to be based cannot be considered valid and adequate within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4108, consideration 3, and 1817, consideration 7).
This plea is, therefore, well-founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal will only note that the Director General failed to adequately indicate, in his decision, the reasons why he did not act in accordance with [the] unanimous opinion [of the Joint Committee for Disputes], since he did not consider in that decision the reasons put forward by the Committee.
Accordingly, the Director General’s decision [...] to dismiss the complainant’s internal complaint [...] must be set aside.
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[W]hile it is true that the Secretary-General did not consult the complainant’s head of unit on the matter, as the Appeal Board had also recommended, the Tribunal’s case law establishes that the executive head of an organisation may reject the recommendations of an internal appeal body as long as reasons are given for her or his decision (see, for example, Judgment 4616, consideration 9, and the judgments cited therein). Since the Secretary-General provided reasons in support of his decision explaining why he deemed it unnecessary to consult the head of unit, the Tribunal considers that the argument on which the complainant seeks to rely, solely concerning that lack of consultation, must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4762
137th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that the executive head of an international organisation, while at liberty to disagree with, and reject, recommendations made by an internal appeal body, must explain why and the basis for the disagreement and rejection (see, for example, Judgment 4598, consideration 12). The Executive Director has not done so in the present case and her decision should be quashed and the matter remitted to the WHO/UNAIDS for a fresh decision to be taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4598
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; motivation of final decision;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; misconduct; motivation of final decision; termination of employment;
Judgment 4699
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions that found that his injuries had consolidated without permanent invalidity.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that the reasoning on which the [impugned] decision [...] was based constitutes a sufficient response to the various arguments raised by the complainant in his internal complaint [...]. In her decision, the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit referred to the opinion of the Joint Committee for Disputes, explaining that she endorsed the view of the two committee members who considered the internal complaint to be unfounded, and this in itself met the requirements of the case law (see Judgments 4473, considerations 4 and 5, and 4281, consideration 11). In addition, she set out the reasons why she considered that due process had been followed and why any challenge to the medical aspects of matter was now time-barred. This reasoning was sufficient and adequate in view of the complainant’s arguments.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4281, 4473
Keywords:
motivation of final decision; report of the internal appeals body;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, “when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself” (see Judgment 4307, consideration 15). In the present case, in the impugned decision, the Secretary General refers to the detailed reasons and explanations set out in the unanimous opinion of the Joint Appeal Committee and summarises them, emphasising the salient points before stating his conclusions. Again, the reasons provided for the decision were sufficiently explicit to enable the complainant to take an informed decision accordingly, as her submissions show, and to allow the Tribunal to exercise its power of review in the present judgment (see Judgment 4081, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4081, 4307
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4616
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision finding that she had harassed another staff member and imposing a written reprimand on her.
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal’s case law establishes, the executive head of an organisation, when adopting the recommendations of an internal appeal body, is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself. The obligation to give reasons is affirmed only where the executive head of an organisation rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the appeal body (see Judgments 4307, consideration 15, and 3994, consideration 12). Accordingly, having accepted the advice of the Advisory Board, the Secretary-General was under no obligation to provide further reasons for his decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3994, 4307
Keywords:
final decision; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4598
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of loss of three steps in grade for her failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of staff members.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A] mere declaration […] that [the Director-General] was satisfied of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt without explaining why, involves a failure to motivate a conclusion at odds with the conclusion of the internal appeals body. This failure, alone, would justify the setting aside of the impugned decision (see Judgments 4400, consideration 10, 4062, consideration 3, and 3969, considerations 10 and 16). What, at a minimum, the Director-General needed to have done was explain why the analysis of the GBA […] was flawed, or did not sustain the ultimate conclusion of the GBA, or both. He did neither.
Keywords:
impugned decision; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Director-General endorsed the conclusions of IOS […] notwithstanding it simply said, “there is sufficient evidence”. There is an obvious tension, if not inconsistency, between endorsing a conclusion based on findings of fact about misconduct on the basis of sufficient evidence and a declaration that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are several judgments of the Tribunal deprecating reliance simply on the sufficiency of evidence as establishing misconduct in disciplinary proceedings. One illustration is found in Judgment 3880, consideration 9 […]
[I]t can be inferred, in this case, that the mere declaration of the Director-General that the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt did not reflect a genuine and considered evaluation of the evidence, and an assessment of it by reference to the applicable standard of proof.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3880
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; motivation of final decision; standard of proof;
Judgment 4591
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in the amount of his functional allowance calculated in proportion to the reduction in his working hours.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also complains that no explanation was provided to him with his payslip [...].
The Tribunal considers, however, [...] that an automatic decision, such as that to reduce the amount of an [...] allowance, is simply the consequence of putting into practice the change in the complainant’s working hours to which he had agreed and that the applicable rules are sufficiently clear. There is therefore no requirement for the Organisation to provide a more detailed formal explanation than that which appeared on the payslip sent to the complainant [...]. By reading that payslip, the complainant was able to understand that the amount of his allowance had been reduced by 20 per cent. It was therefore open to him to familiarise himself with the relevant provisions and, if necessary, to request further information in that regard.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; payslip;
Judgment 4586
135th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to convert his suspension with pay into a suspension without pay pending an investigation for misconduct against him, as well as the overall length of his suspension.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The reasons given for the suspension without pay from 26 March 2019, and in effect the reason for transforming the suspension as one with pay to one without pay, was [...] that: “[t]he various interviews that have been conducted by OIG, including with you, and the strong evidence gathered thus far in the course of the investigation have reinforced the credibility of the allegations raised against you” and later: “the elements gathered by OIG [...] reinforce[d] the credibility of the allegations raised against you”. The letter of 26 March 2019 does not refer to the requirement in the rules that suspension without pay can only occur if the Director General (or a person acting on delegation) considers there are exceptional circumstances. But it can reasonably be inferred that the additional elements just quoted were viewed as constituting exceptional circumstances. The legal question which then arises is whether it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to form that opinion. The word “exceptional”, in this context, denotes circumstances which are beyond, and probably well beyond, circumstances which might simply justify suspension with pay. But apart from that, the expression “exceptional circumstances” is an expression of great width. It must be borne in mind that the power to suspend does not simply arise in circumstances where allegations of serious misconduct are being investigated or pursued in disciplinary proceedings (as it does in some other organisations’ rules). The power to suspend as expressly conferred by IOM’s rules can be exercised in relation to any conduct which might lead to a disciplinary sanction which could include alleged minor transgressions. But, of course, questions of proportionality can arise as discussed in consideration 8 [...]. Moreover, under Rule 10.3(d) a person suspended without pay is entitled to receive pay withheld if the allegations against the staff member were not substantiated or later found not to warrant summary dismissal. In this respect, the Rule itself ameliorates what otherwise might be viewed as the severe effect of suspension without pay. What, in substance, the letter of 26 March 2019 was saying was that the case against the complainant involving the receipt of corrupt payments of approximately 600,000 United States dollars (and solicited by him) was one where there was a much-increased measure of certainty, in the eyes of the Organization, that in fact corrupt payments in this amount had been received. If proved it would be a gross misconduct of the most egregious kind and almost certainly criminal behaviour. The decision-maker was entitled, in the Tribunal’s view, to treat the highly likely fact that the complainant had received corrupt payments in this amount solicited by him, as giving rise to exceptional circumstances in all the circumstances.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; suspension without pay;
Judgment 4565
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary sanction of downgrading for having engaged in gainful employment while on non-active status without prior authorisation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In the impugned decision […], the President was […] following the Committee’s conclusions (including that the complainant had acted in good faith) and recommendation which, in turn, was based, […] on a balanced and thoughtful consideration by the Committee of all the circumstances. In such a case, an executive head does not need to fully motivate acceptance and adoption of the conclusions and applicable recommendation (see Judgment 4044, consideration 7), particularly bearing in mind that the imposition of a disciplinary measure involves the exercise of a wide discretionary power (see Judgment 4460, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4044, 4460
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4547
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he President’s reasoning is clearly inadequate, as it is limited to a reference to the report and recommendations of the JAB, which evidently likewise failed to take into account the principles set out above when carrying out its work. Given that the President merely stated that the complainant’s internal complaint had been examined by AUO in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable within IFAD through the conduct of a full investigation, the Tribunal considers that such reasoning, which takes no account of the complainant’s criticisms in her internal appeal, does not constitute adequate reasoning for the purposes of the case law according to which any decision adversely affecting a staff member must state the reasons on which it is based (see, for example, Judgment 2347, considerations 11 and 12) and consequently must be founded on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgment 4108, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4108
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4545
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4543
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation for 2016.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which “the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations” (see, for example, Judgment 4062, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4062
Keywords:
final decision; motivation; motivation of final decision;
Judgment 4541
134th Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to notify her of the outcome of the investigation into her internal complaint of moral harassment, the decision not to send her the full report drawn up following that investigation, and the decision not to inform her of the outcome of her internal complaint.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[M]erely informing an international civil servant that disciplinary proceedings have been started against a supervisor
following an investigation into a complaint of harassment and that appropriate managerial measures have been taken [...] does not enable that civil servant to know whether the harassment she or he alleges has been recognised and, if so, how the organisation concerned intends to compensate her or him for the material or moral injury suffered (see, to that effect, Judgment 3965, consideration 9).
[...]
[T]he staff member who engaged the procedure, while not entitled to be informed of any measures taken against the alleged harasser, is entitled to a decision on the question of harassment itself (see [...] Judgment 3096, consideration 15) and, in consequence, to receive a reply from the administration concerning her or his harassment complaint (see, to that effect, Judgment 4207, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3096, 3965, 4207
Keywords:
harassment; motivation; motivation of final decision;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
