Duty to inform (204,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to inform
Total judgments found: 158
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4060
127th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.
Consideration 29
Extract:
[A] review of the chronology [...] shows that the Administration failed to provide the complainant with relevant information in a timely manner. This led to unnecessary delays in the resolution of the complainant’s case, misunderstandings, and was an affront to the complainant’s dignity. This ongoing failure to provide the complainant with the information which he was entitled to receive is exacerbated by the fact that the ICC has not advanced any reasons for withholding the information. The complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros and costs in the amount of 6,000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; injury; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4050
126th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of relegation in step.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The claims of breach of due process are unfounded.
[...]
(b) The complainant claims that he should have had 15 days to respond to the new allegation of misconduct regarding the charge of breach of confidentiality, as it was not included in the Article 100 report. In a similar situation the Tribunal concluded as follows: “The Tribunal notes that the Disciplinary Committee addressed this issue explicitly in the proceedings and in its final report. The Disciplinary Committee has the prerogative to immediately address something which occurs during the proceedings, in the interest of procedural efficiency. As the complainant was given the opportunity to comment on the alleged breach of confidentiality, the principle of due process was respected. The complainant had adequate time to prepare his defence.” (See Judgment 3971, under 15.) These conclusions are applicable to the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3971
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; duty to inform; right to reply;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, by virtue of the principle that an international organisation must provide its staff members with a safe and healthy working environment, it is liable for all injuries caused to a staff member by a supervisor when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to her or his dignity (see, for example, Judgments 1609, under 16, 1875, under 32, 2706, under 5, or 3170, under 33).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2706, 3170
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; patere legem; respect for dignity;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duty to inform;
Consideration 2
Extract:
Having regard to the way in which the questions were formulated, the Organisation supplied answers which may be deemed adequate. The Tribunal therefore finds that, in the circumstances, the EPO honoured its obligation to provide information and its duty of care. Indeed, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3213, under 7, whilst international organisations have a duty of care towards their employees and must provide clear rules and regulations as well as clarifications of such when requested, they cannot be solely responsible for every situation stemming from a misunderstanding of those rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3213
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; organisation's duties;
Judgment 3953
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading and to recover from her undue payments through monthly deductions from her salary.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant filled out and signed the “Declaration concerning rent allowance” on 7 March 2005, thereby assuming the obligations arising from Article 74 of the Service Regulations. The consequent obligation to notify the Office of any changes aimed at guaranteeing the proper use of the rent allowance. Furthermore, with respect to Apt. A, the complainant alleges that in a similar case the EPO acted differently. However, the objection is unfounded. By failing to notify the EPO that the rent she was paying for Apt. A did not only relate to her as from April 2005, when her partner moved into the apartment, although she had certified on 7 March 2005 that she would notify “any changes” immediately, the complainant breached the rules governing the granting of the rent allowance, unjustly benefiting, and, hence, the principle of equality cannot be applied, as there can be no equality in illegality.
Keywords:
duty to inform; misrepresentation; staff member's duties;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In Judgment 3376 [...] the Tribunal recalled that an organisation “that resorts to subcontractors, be they companies or individuals, must ensure that the contract it signs with them will not have an adverse impact on the situation of officials who are subject to the staff regulations and will not unjustifiably infringe the rights they enjoy under those regulations. The risk of such an infringement is particularly great in the case of long-term contractual outsourcing and in cases where the tasks involved are still partly performed concurrently by regular staff (see Judgment 2919 passim). In such cases the duty of care requires the organisation to provide the staff concerned with adequate information concerning the outsourcing procedures and their possible impact on their professional situation and to prevent any possible adverse impact thereon (see Judgments 2519, under 10, 1756, under 10(b), and 1780, under 6(a)).”
[...]
The lack of transparency noted by the Appeals Board is corroborated by the evidence on file, which shows that although the complainant contacted his supervisors on numerous occasions, they did not provide him with sufficient information as to the reasons for the outsourcing of the tasks that he performed and the way in which it would be achieved. Moreover, the evidence does not show that the Organization did its utmost to minimise the negative impact of the use of service contracts on the complainant’s status.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1780, 2519, 2919, 3376
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; outsourcing;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 15
Extract:
It should also be noted that, in breach of the UPU’s duty of care and duty to protect the dignity of its staff members, the complainant was not even notified directly of the abolition of his post. He was instead informed, as all staff, via the publication of a corrigendum of January 2015 to internal memorandum No. 02/2015, stating, inter alia, that a “P3 Post (French Translation Service)” would be abolished (along with the other four posts). The Tribunal recalls that “[t]he decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment” (see Judgment 3041, under 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; duty to inform;
Judgment 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
If, as a matter of practice or by operation of staff rules, regulations or other normative legal documents, internal documents are created by management proposing the abolition of a post and the post is abolished, the organisation is not under a legal obligation to provide those documents to the person whose post is to be abolished (see Judgment 2885, consideration 6). Nevertheless, the organisation is obliged to inform the affected staff member of the reasons for the abolition of the post. That obligation can be discharged (though it was not in the present case) by setting out in another document, as is often the case in a letter informing the staff member that the post is abolished, reasons which may have been discussed in internal management documents created in the lead-up to the decision to abolish the post. [...]
Even if a document is confidential, this ordinarily does not provide a basis for not providing the complainant with a copy of it, which might potentially be an important document, in adversarial proceedings such as the internal appeal procedure where the document is relied on by the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3862, consideration 11). The complainant, in this case, was entitled to see the evidence advanced by the Organization in the internal appeal procedure in order to equip her to provide rebutting evidence or to otherwise challenge the evidence or comment on it. These legal principles are rooted in judgments of the Tribunal made well before these proceedings commenced (see, for example, Judgment 2700, consideration 6). While it is not an issue raised directly by the complainant in her pleas, this failure to uphold the complainant’s due process rights warrants an award of moral damages which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 15,000 United States dollars.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform;
Judgment 3918
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
An organisation which has restructured, abolished positions, and is in the process of trying to reassign staff members whose positions have been abolished is under a positive duty to communicate with them in a way that promotes the likelihood of reassignment (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 14, 3439, consideration 9, and 3755, consideration 9). It is no answer to suggest that the staff member is under a duty to inform herself or himself and failed to do so. However, again, this is another manifestation of the flawed reassignment process by which the complainant was deprived of the opportunity of being reassigned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Judgment 3917
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Organization established a reassignment committee – the GRC – in order to reclassify the staff members whose posts had been abolished, there is no evidence that the Committee met with the complainant. The Tribunal’s case law has it that administrative bodies have the duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, 3439, under 9, and 3755, under 9). In this case, the complainant had no opportunity to participate in the reassignment process. The Tribunal therefore considers that WHO breached its obligations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Judgment 3916
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he file shows that while WHO established a reassignment committee – namely, the Global Reassignment Committee – with a view to reassigning the staff members whose posts had been abolished, there is no evidence that the Committee met with the complainant. The Tribunal’s case law has it that administrative bodies have a duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, 3439, under 9, and 3755, under 9). In this case, the complainant had no opportunity to participate in the reassignment process. The Tribunal therefore considers that the Organization breached its obligations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Judgment 3861
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 3024, under 12, the Tribunal recalled that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3024
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3824
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3421.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[The Organisation] executed Judgment 3421 as far as possible having regard to the change in circumstances since the end of the disputed competition. It did not act unlawfully by stating that it was impossible for it to re-open the competition, because this was prevented by a restructuring, the need for which cannot be contested. Nor did it act unlawfully by failing to provide additional information to the complainant, beyond that which it had provided at his request in the letter dated 1 November 2013.
Nevertheless, the defendant’s failure to inform the Tribunal of a change in circumstances that would have rendered moot the complaint leading to Judgment 3421 led to the adoption of that same judgment, the execution of which is partly impossible. The complainant is thus entitled to moral damages, though it must also be taken into account that he too could have informed the Tribunal of the change in circumstances.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3421
Keywords:
duty to inform; execution of judgment; moral injury;
Judgment 3758
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 15
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 2170, under 14, “[a]n international organisation has a duty to comply with its own internal rules and to conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that these will be followed”. An organisation also has a duty to ensure that accurate information is provided to staff members. In turn, a staff member is entitled to rely on that information.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
duty to inform; general principle; patere legem;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 18
Extract:
[T]he complainant was not invited to play an active part in the various stages of the reassignment process, it cannot be denied that he had no opportunity to engage meaningfully in his reassignment, as he could have done if he had been informed in a timely manner of the vacant posts which might have matched his profile and qualifications and if he had been given a chance to show that he was suited to the duties related to these posts.
Keywords:
duty to inform;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has repeatedly held that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) a decision affecting a personal interest worthy of protection. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. But such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers (see Judgment 3688, under 29, and the case law cited therein).
The Tribunal has also found that the report of the body responsible for conducting a reassignment process […] is analogous not to the records of confidential discussions, but to the final report of a selection committee which may be disclosed to the staff member concerned, if necessary with redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3290, under 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3290, 3688
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; evidence; right to be heard;
Consideration 9
Extract:
It is to no avail that the defendant organisation refers to consideration 23 of [...] Judgment 2933, in which the Tribunal held that a reassignment committee is under no obligation to inform staff members participating in a reassignment process of every step taken to reassign them. Such discretion is fully justified when exhaustive information about the steps taken with a view to reassignment might arouse false hopes in the job seeker. In this case, however, the conduct denounced is plainly incompatible with the administrative bodies’ duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, and 3439, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 2933, 3439
Keywords:
duty to inform; reassignment;
Judgment 3754
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law does establish a duty of care on an organisation which, in relation to the exercise of the right of appeal, obliges the organisation to help a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of the right (see, for example, Judgment 2345, consideration 1). Equally, however, there is corresponding obligation on members of staff to inform themselves of the rules and regulations concerning dispute resolution (see Judgment 1734, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 2345
Keywords:
duty to inform;
Judgment 3751
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t was not for the complainant to have to discern from all surrounding circumstances known to her the reason why her post had been abolished and the reason why she had not been matched to a new position. It was incumbent on WHO to provide those reasons both as a matter of fairness and also to safeguard the complainant’s right to contest the decision (see Judgment 3041, consideration 8). WHO’s failure to provide those reasons entitles the complainant to moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty to inform; moral injury;
Judgment 3394
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal considered that, by taking it upon itself to interpret Judgment 3119, WIPO breached its duty to execute that judgment fully and correctly.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In accordance with the principle of good faith and good administrative practice, the Organization will supply the complainant with the details of the sums due to him, as he requested.
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith;
Judgment 3295
116th Session, 2014
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint concerning a disciplinary measure was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated the existence of an error warranting the cancellation of the sanction.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that he was not given a copy of the Ethics Officer’s investigation report and the records of witness interviews. It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty to inform; inquiry; investigation; investigation report; official; right;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to be heard; selection board; selection procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
