Delay (111,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Delay
Total judgments found: 155
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4184
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant mainly challenges the alleged misuse of short-term contracts in her case, the non-extension of her last contract and the allegedly incorrect classification of her job.
Consideration 10
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, staff members are entitled to expect their requests to be dealt with by the competent authorities within a reasonable period of time (see, for example, Judgment 3773, consideration 5). In the present case, the complainant sent her grievance to HRD on 26 June 2013 and it was not until 19 November 2014 that HRD informed her that she should no longer expect to receive a reply from the Organization to her grievance. The Tribunal considers that the fact that the Organization did not give the complainant any reply and, moreover, that it waited more than a year to inform her that this would be the case, after having informed her that she would receive a reply, constitutes an unacceptable attitude on the part of the Organization, which reflects a lack of respect for the complainant. This has resulted in moral injury that requires compensation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3773
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[...] Although it must be taken into account that the complainant took a month to provide his comments and that HRD asked the investigator to respond to them, which may have taken some time, the Tribunal considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
The moral injury thus caused to the complainant will be fairly redressed by awarding him compensation in the amount of 1,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the findings of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases should be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[I]n view of the circumstances of the case, a period of nine months between the submission of the conclusions of the investigation and the notification of the decision of HRD is excessive. Harassment cases must be treated as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to protect staff members from unnecessary suffering, but attention must also be paid to thoroughness and procedure (see Judgment 3447, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3447
Keywords:
delay; harassment; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4090
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The complainant is entitled to moral damages for the delay in the consideration of his application for a disability benefit arising from the IAEA’s breach of its duty of care. The Tribunal takes into account the fact that, but for the delay, he may have been in receipt of the disability benefit earlier.
Keywords:
delay; disability benefit; duty of care; moral injury;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he final constitution of the Board [was delayed] for almost four months. This was an unreasonably long period and delayed the resolution of the complainant’s application, which was ultimately successful, for a disability benefit. While the complainant has not discharged the burden of proving retaliation, bias and prejudice, the IAEA is liable for the consequences of this delay involving, as it does, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant, a ground relied on by the complainant in his fifth argument (see Judgment 2936, consideration 19). The IAEA, through its officers, was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the complainant’s request for review of the decision to refuse him a disability benefit was dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If, as happened, an impasse about who should be the Chair arose between a member of the Board nominated by the staff member and a temporary member [...] of the Board nominated by the Administration who also had the responsibility to nominate another member as his own replacement, then steps should have been taken with great expedition to nominate the member to replace him.
Keywords:
breach; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; disability benefit; duty of care; medical board; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4059
127th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to affiliate her to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant does not dispute the grounds on which the finding of irreceivability was made. However, she asks the Tribunal to consider her complaint as an “exceptional case”. The relevant case law of the Tribunal consistently states:
“Under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, a complaint will not be receivable unless the impugned decision is a final decision and the complainant has exhausted all the internal means of redress. This means that a complaint will not be receivable ‘if the underlying internal appeal was not filed within the applicable time limits’ [...].”
(Judgment 3758, under 10; see also Judgment 3687, under 9, and the cases cited therein.)
In Judgment 3758, under 11, the Tribunal added:
“As the Tribunal has consistently stated, the strict adherence to time limits is essential to have finality and certainty in relation to the legal effect of decisions. ‘When an applicable time limit to challenge a decision has passed, the organisation is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision is fully and legally effective.’ (See Judgment 3439, under 4.)”
However, the case law also recognizes that there are exceptions to the requirement of the strict adherence to the applicable time limits. In Judgment 3687, under 10, the Tribunal stated:
“[I]n very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
(See also Judgment 3758, under 12.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3140, 3405, 3439, 3687, 3758
Keywords:
delay; exception; receivability of the complaint; time limit;
Judgment 4037
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, officials are entitled to expect that their case will be dealt with by the internal appeal body within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3336, under 6). In this case, the Tribunal considers that while the complainant was partly responsible for the delay of which she complains insofar as she had requested and obtained a two-month extension of the time limit for submitting her rejoinder, the internal proceedings lasted an excessively long time having regard to the nature of the case. Their length caused the complainant moral injury, entitling her to damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3336
Keywords:
delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 4026
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...]The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
Keywords:
delay; promotion;
Judgment 4024
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...] The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
Keywords:
delay; promotion;
Judgment 4015
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him damages for the alleged leaking of confidential information concerning him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4014
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to investigate his harassment complaint by an external investigator and not by an investigation panel provided for in the applicable rules.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 4013
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate his harassment complaint in accordance with the applicable rules.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]n the complaint form submitted to the Tribunal, the complainant seeks “moral damages for the delay in the internal complaint and appeals process”. As the complainant did not make any submissions in his brief in relation to this claim, it will not be considered.
Keywords:
delay; internal procedure; moral injury;
Judgment 3970
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to prolong his service beyond the mandatory retirement age.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant also claims compensation for the material injury arising from the fact that he was informed too late of the dismissal of his request for a prolongation of his service to be able to cancel in a timely fashion the lease on his accommodation and the related telephone and Internet subscriptions.
It must be observed in this respect that the procedure for considering requests by members of boards of appeal for a prolongation of service prescribed by Communiqué No. 2/08 of 11 July 2008 does not specify an exact time limit in which the competent authority must decide on a request submitted to it. Moreover, since such a request can be granted only on the condition that a prolongation of service is in the interest of the service, a decision can logically be taken only on a date sufficiently close to that on which the employee concerned will reach normal retirement age for that authority to be in a position to make an informed assessment of the advisability of such a prolongation in the light of that criterion (see [...] Judgment 3214, under 16).
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Organisation, in view of its duty of care towards its employees, to ensure that members of boards of appeal who submit requests for their service to be prolonged are informed of the outcome thereof sufficiently far in advance to enable them to make adequate arrangements for their personal lives after they attain normal retirement age.
[...]
In this case, the complainant was not informed of the rejection of his request until 21 October 2014, 40 days before he was retired on 30 November.
The evidence makes it plain that this did not allow him to terminate the lease for his accommodation and the abovementioned subscriptions in a timely fashion. [...] The EPO will therefore be ordered to pay the complainant the sum, in the duly substantiated amount of 2,005 euros, which he claims as compensation for the material injury which he suffered under this head.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3214
Keywords:
age limit; delay; extension beyond retirement age; material damages; refusal;
Judgment 3967
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The claim for moral damages for the excessive delay in the internal appeal proceedings is well founded as it is clear that the EPO breached its obligation to ensure that its internal procedure moved forward with reasonable speed (see, for example, Judgment 2197, consideration 33). [...] That period of more than six years in the internal appeal proceedings constituted excessive delay, even taking into consideration the complainant’s illness and the efforts which were made to amicably settle the matter. For this, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal procedure;
Judgment 3966
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant objects to the behaviour of his director which he characterises as harassment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s claim for an award of punitive damages for the delay will be dismissed. The Tribunal has stated, for example in Judgment 2935, consideration 5, that an award of punitive damages can be made only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation’s conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith. There is no evidence that the EPO acted in bad faith with respect to the delay in the internal appeal proceedings. However, the complainant will be awarded moral damages in the amount of 6,000 euros, particularly given the length of the delay and the impact of that delay on him in his personal circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2935
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal; punitive damages;
Judgment 3963
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that the Organisation has breached its duty of care in relation to possible taxation of the invalidity allowance.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant also requests compensation in the amount of 5,000 euros for the moral injury caused by the excessive duration of the proceedings which, he contends, lasted “more than [six] years”. It must be noted that the duration alleged by the complainant includes phases after October 2007 when informal requests were made. However, for the purpose of determining the duration of the proceedings, the starting date must be deemed to be that on which the internal appeal was filed, namely 7 May 2010. As the date on which it was dismissed was 5 February 2014, the internal appeal proceedings lasted almost four years and not “more than [six] years”. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers that this duration is still excessive. The EPO has not explained why it needed virtually two years as from the date on which the internal appeal was filed to submit its position thereupon. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the complainant must be awarded moral damages in the amount of 3,500 euros for the inordinate length of the internal appeal proceedings.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3946
125th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amounts she was awarded for the delay in processing her request for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 16
Extract:
Regarding the claim for additional moral damages for delay, it is observed that the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the processing of the complainant’s claim and the delay this occasioned is attributable in large measure to WIPO’s failure to follow the required procedure in Article 12.2 of the insurer’s policy for which the complainant is entitled to additional moral damages in the amount of 5,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay; failure to answer claim;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
As to delay in the internal appeals process, the Tribunal notes that the internal appeal to the Appeals Committee was lodged on 23 June 2014. The Committee, it appears, did not meet to consider the case until 14 October 2015 and reported on 19 February 2016 resulting in a decision of the Director-General on 9 May 2016. This delay is excessive (though the time taken for the initial appeal to the Director-General is not) and no explanation or answer is provided by the FAO in its reply. Indeed it makes no submissions on this question at all. The complainant is entitled to moral damages for this delay.
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; internal appeal;
Judgment 3886
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant claims that the proceedings before the IRG took four years, which constitutes an inordinate delay. The ILO submits that the delay is reasonable as the complainant’s request was clearly irreceivable and did not cause him any prejudice. The Tribunal notes that paragraph 19 of Circular No. 639 [...] provides that appeals shall normally be processed within three months. As the complainant’s request was not complicated and the Organization has not provided any real justification for the delay, the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. Considering the obvious irreceivability of the original request, the Tribunal sets the award at 2,500 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
delay; moral injury;
Judgment 3880
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s finding of misconduct and the imposition of the disciplinary measure of suspension without pay for two weeks, and claims excessive delay in the disciplinary and internal appeal proceedings.
Consideration 22
Extract:
Although the disciplinary process itself was lengthy, given the complexity of the case, the time necessary to properly respond to the complainant’s numerous requests and the time necessary to assess the evidence and to determine what charges, if any, should be made, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings.
Keywords:
delay; disciplinary procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
