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 3264
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision not to renew her contract after an extension of her probationary period and is granted damages.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; decision quashed; disclosure of evidence; discretion; due process; duty to inform; extension of contract; general principle; good faith; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; probationary period; procedural flaw; respect for dignity; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is to give an organisation an opportunity to evaluate a probationer’s suitability for a position (see Judgment 2646, under 5). This gives rise to corollary obligations on the part of the organisation to warn a staff member in a timely manner that her or his performance is unsatisfactory, to give the staff member guidance and an opportunity to improve and to set objectives against which improvement can be measured. These are “fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity” (see Judgment 2414, under 23)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2646
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; probationary period; respect for dignity; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 3239
115th Session, 2013
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal quashed the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract because it was taken on the basis of flawed performance evaluation reports.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Placing a document in a staff member's file is not the same as its notification in due and proper form.
Keywords:
duty to inform; personal file;
Judgment 3234
115th Session, 2013
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugned the decision to abolish his post following a restructuring.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he Commission has acted inappropriately by refusing to present evidence requested by the Joint Appeals Panel, on the grounds that it did not consider the evidence to be pertinent to the appeal. It was for the Panel to decide, upon examination of the evidence, whether or not they were pertinent. Considering the fact that the evidence could have had an effect on the Panel’s findings, and considering the Commission’s refusal to submit to the authority of the Joint Appeals Panel without giving any reasonable explanation for such a refusal, the Tribunal finds that this is a violation of its duty to act in good faith and undermines the proper functioning of the internal appeals process. This will be taken into account in the calculation of the award of damages to the complainant (see Judgment 1319, under 9)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1319
Keywords:
advisory body; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3216
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her performance appraisal for its content and on the basis of what she considers to be procedural flaws.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"A fundamental principle of the adversarial process is the right to know and have an opportunity to respond to the evidence adduced by the opposing party (see Judgments 1815, under 5, and 2700, under 6). Upon receipt of the report, the Board, which ultimately relied upon it, was obliged to advise the complainant of the receipt of new evidence and give her an opportunity to respond before taking it into consideration."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2700
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; case law; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; general principle; organisation's duties; right to be heard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Judgment 3200
115th Session, 2013
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Paragraph 5.2 [of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual] must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fundamental right of due process to know the name of the accuser except in those circumstances where revealing the identity of the accuser could undermine the integrity of the investigation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 5.2 of the OSDI Quality Assurance Manual
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; opening of an investigation; procedural rights during investigation; witness;
Judgment 3187
114th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who requested the opening of an investigation into attempts to hack her computer, did not exhaust internal means of redress.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; duty to inform; failure to exhaust internal remedies;
Judgment 3158
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the decision not to reimburse the pharmaceutical products prescribed by his doctor.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he complainant only became aware of the substitution of one of the members of the Internal Appeals Committee (which occurred after the hearings) when he received a copy of the Internal Appeals Committee’s opinion. For the sake of transparency and due process, the complainant should have been informed at the time of the substitution so that he could exercise his right to contest the composition. The fact that the alternate member voted in the complainant’s favour does not redeem that flaw. Moreover, the alternate member did not attend and participate in the hearing, whereas his participation could have changed or influenced the Internal Appeals Committee’s final opinion."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to reply;
Judgment 3124
113th Session, 2012
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3 and 5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal's case law, an organisation cannot unilaterally alter the status of a staff member before giving him or her an opportunity to express a view on the action that it intends to take (see in particular Judgments 1484, under 8, and 1817, under 7 ).
[...]
The Tribunal considers that, although the defendant's assertions may be correct, the fact remains that there is nothing in the file to show that the requirement in the above-mentionned case law has been met. Indeed, there is no evidence that the complainant was expressly informed by the ITU that her appointment was to be terminated for health reasons and that she was thus given the opportunity to state her views on that termination in advance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; right to be heard;
Judgment 3120
113th Session, 2012
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; duty to inform; medical records; organisation's duties;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that in principle, in the absence of specific rules or regulations governing the right of a staff member to access his or her own medical file, that right must be considered to comprehend the right to view and obtain copies of all records and notes in the file, and to add relevant notes to correct any part of the file considered wrong or incomplete. So stated, that right gives effect to the Organisation’s duty of transparency. [...] [I]t is clear from [Judgments 1684, 2045 and 2047] that, while there may be some cases in which it is not advisable to allow staff members to have full access to their medical file at a particular point in time (and the decision to deny access temporarily must be fully justified and reasonable), the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning him or her mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to his or her medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary). [...] It must be pointed out that the staff member’s right to add a note to his or her medical file with a view to correcting any aspect considered wrong or incomplete is consistent with the Organisation’s duty of transparency and with the right of that staff member to ensure the accuracy of his or her personal information."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684, 2045, 2047
Keywords:
date; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; formal requirements; general principle; medical records; no provision; official; organisation's duties; refusal; right;
Judgment 3117
113th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that the decision [...] breached the principle of due process in that it was taken on the basis of information which had not previously been brought to his attention. In this connexion the Tribunal notes that, when an international organisation examines a request submitted by a staff member, it is not bound to inform that person of all the steps which it is taking in that respect. On the other hand, in that or any other situation, it does have a duty to provide the person concerned with any items of information which might have a bearing on the outcome of his/her claims (see Judgments 1815, under 5, or 2315, under 27 ). [...]
However, according to the Tribunal's case law, failure to disclose an item of information will in any case not render a decision unlawful where this flaw has been remedied in the course of an internal appeal procedure or of proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 301, under 2, 1815, under 4 and 5, or 2558, under 5(a)), and that is precisely what occurred in this case since [...] a copy of the email in question was forwarded to the complainant at the same time as the disputed decision, with the result that he was duly enabled to challenge its content during the internal appeal proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 301, 1815, 2315, 2558
Keywords:
delay; delay in internal procedure; due process; duty to inform; motivation;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
[T]he three governing principles in the Tribunal’s case law in relation to the non-confirmation of appointment for unsatisfactory performance were fully respected in the complainant’s case. The three principles to which the defendant refers are: the staff member must be informed of the criteria used to evaluate his or her performance; the staff member must be informed of the deficiencies in performance so that remedial steps can be taken and the organisation must take steps to help the staff member to improve; and, the staff member must be clearly warned that continued employment is in jeopardy.
Keywords:
duty to inform; probationary period;
Judgment 3070
112th Session, 2012
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; duty to inform; work appraisal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed (see Judgment 2414, under 23). Precedent also has it that the procedure used for drawing up a performance appraisal forming the basis of a dismissal decision must always be adversarial (see, in particular, Judgments 2468, under 17, and 2515, under 18)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 2515
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; criteria; date; duty to inform; organisation's duties; purpose; right; termination of employment; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Consistent with the Tribunal’s case law that “it will not order the production of documents on the speculative basis that something might be found to further the complainant’s case” (Judgment 2510, under 7), the complainant’s application is refused.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; duty to inform; right to be heard;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that there can be no justification for the delay and the failure to give the complainant a final decision. The fact that the [internal appeal body's] recommendations left the Administration in a difficult position does not excuse the unreasonable delay or absolve the Director-General from fulfilling her obligation to give a final decision in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal finds it particularly egregious that the failure to give a decision also resulted in the complainant not knowing the outcome of the [internal appeal] process. In addition to leaving the complainant in an unfair position in terms of any negotiations or other attempts to resolve the dispute, the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to consider the findings and recommendations contained in the [internal appeal body's] report before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It appears that [the Organization's] conduct undermined the integrity of the internal appeal process and was a blatant disregard of the complainant's rights."
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complainant; delay; duty of care; duty to inform; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; recommendation; right; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
"The 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."
Keywords:
abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17- 18
Extract:
The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
Judgment 3026
111th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled that “[a]n organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better” (see Judgment 1583, under 6(a)). Thus, “[a] staff member [...] is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service [and] to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which [his or her] future performance will be assessed” (see Judgment 2414, under 23). It is clear that the unsatisfactory aspects of the complainant’s performance were detailed in the mid-point review in his 2006 performance appraisal and detailed in a way that enabled him to know the areas in which he needed to improve his performance.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1583, 2414
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
