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 2392
98th Session, 2005
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant was not selected for a post. She contends that IFAD has not informed her of the reasons for rejecting her application. "[T]he evidence shows that, at best, the complainant was given only partial and incomplete oral reasons for the failure to give her preference, long after the internal appeal proceedings had been exhausted and the complaint to the Tribunal instituted. If reasons for a non-selection decision are to have any use at all they must be given in time for an unsuccessful candidate to decide what, if any, recourse should be sought. Here, they were not and the plea is well founded."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complainant; delay; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; internal appeal; post; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; time limit;
Judgment 2354
97th Session, 2004
World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords:
abolition of post; advisory body; advisory opinion; binding character; condition; consequence; decision; due process; duty to inform; executive head; flaw; grade; grounds; independence; lack of evidence; official; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; provision; staff reduction; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment; written rule;
Judgment 2345
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1(c)
Extract:
"[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."
Keywords:
complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;
Judgment 2337
97th Session, 2004
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The case law cited [by the complainant] refers to the situation of a staff member who, failing any indication to the contrary, can rely on the continuation of his contractual relations (either not terminated or renewed), since according to the rules of good faith the Organization should warn the staff member if it considers his performance unsatisfactory in order to give him a chance to improve. The situation is different if an organisation [...] restricts the number of fixed term contracts a staff member may be given and lays down specific conditions for the award of an indefinite contract. In this case, the staff member cannot sit back and wait for his contract to be turned into an indefinite contract, since he will be expected to meet stricter requirements. Of course, the Organization is not on that account relieved of its duty of care towards the staff member, and, in accordance with the rules of good faith, it must warn him either if it is convinced that he is simply incapable of performing the duties attached to an indefinite contract, or if it believes that, in order to perform them the staff member must improve the quality of his work still further. This is an obligation the Organization must fulfil particularly in the context of periodic performance appraisals."
Keywords:
case law; condition; contract; duty to inform; fixed-term; good faith; legitimate expectation; organisation's duties; performance report; permanent appointment; satisfactory service; successive contracts; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2336
97th Session, 2004
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]he publication of the internal invitation for candidature presuppose[s] that the procedure for selecting candidates [...] be conducted in compliance with the general principles recalled in the case law and with rules established prior to the invitation for candidature and known to the candidates, such rules being designed to guarantee objectivity and transparency in order to ensure that all candidates stand the same chances."
Keywords:
case law; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; general principle; internal candidate; internal competition; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2325
97th Session, 2004
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he delay of some 15 months between the selection of the successful candidate and the notification to the complainant thereof was unreasonably long. The Agency's argument to the effect that the complainant was implicitly aware of his non-selection because he knew that someone else had been placed on the post is not acceptable. It had the duty to inform the complainant in a timely manner of his non-appointment. The Agency has failed in its obligation to deal with the complainant in good faith and, while such failure can in no way affect the validity of the selection process itself, it does entitle the complainant to a nominal award of moral damages which the Tribunal fixes at 500 euros."
Keywords:
administrative delay; candidate; competition; duty to inform; good faith; moral injury; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; consequence; decision; duty to inform; elements; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith. Furthermore, an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. In particular, it must inform them in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or rightful interests (see, for example, Judgment 1756 [...], under 10(a) and the others cited therein; and for more recent cases, Judgments 2017 [...]; 2051 [...]; 2067 [...]; and 2072 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2017, 2051, 2067, 2072
Keywords:
case law; decision; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2112
92nd Session, 2002
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"A decision affecting an official will always be preceded by administrative formalities, but it will become binding on the organisation only when it is notified to the official, in the manner prescribed by the organisation (see Judgment 1560, under 9). Notification may also take some other form as long as it can be inferred from it that the organisation intended to notify the decision. But information about the formalities themselves is clearly not notification. In the interests of clarity it is desirable, and indeed often the practice, for the person concerned by some future decision to be given such information. But to see it as notification of a decision would be wrong and could lead to serious confusion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560
Keywords:
administrative instruction; binding character; condition; date; decision; definition; duty to inform; effect; formal requirements; purport;
Judgment 2047
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"With regard to the complainant's claim to be provided with copies of any medical reports relied upon by [the insurance brokers] Van Breda, it is trite law that a staff member's right to see medical reports may not ordinarily be challenged. As such, the complainant should be provided with copies of medical reports contained in Van Breda's file relating to this matter. Whether or not the [organisation] has these documents in their possession is irrelevant. As the policy holder, it has the right to give instructions that the complainant be given access to these documents and must ensure that she is provided with the information as soon as reasonably possible. [...] It is of no avail that some or all of the reports in question may have been given by the complainant's own doctors: she is entitled to know from Van Breda exactly what medical information about her it has received and from whom."
Keywords:
duty to inform; insurance; medical opinion; medical records; organisation's duties; right;
Judgment 2045
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has recalled in Judgment 1684 [...], medical records are strictly personal and the staff member's right to see them may not ordinarily be challenged."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1684
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty to inform; medical records; right;
Judgment 2037
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainants challenge the appointment of another staff member. The Appeals Committee considered that the appeals had not been filed in time. But the complainants argue that the challenged appointment was not definitive until the offer had been signed and the conditions for appointment satisfied. "When what is challenged is a contract between an organisation and a future employee, the act which may be impugned is the contract as communicated by the organisation, irrespective of the possibilities open to the contracting parties to appeal internally such as a medical examination still to be undergone [...] legal certainty requires communications from an organisation to be reliable so that all concerned know when the time limit for an appeal starts to run. this is all the more important when the organisation is not bound to reveal the exact content of the contract. In this instance, [...] since the organisation had already notified its decision and its agreement with the future [staff member] on his terms of appointment, the signing of the contract and the prior medical examination appeared to be mere formalities. It would have been sheer pedantry to insist that they be completed and the staff so informed before the appointment of the [staff member] was announced." The time limit for an appeal had therefore started to run as soon as the personnel had been informed of the contested appointment.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; contract; date; decision; duty to inform; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; medical examination; offer; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; start of time limit; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17(D)
Extract:
The complainant argues that his dismissal was based on unsubstantiated accusations and evidence that was not made available to him. "It is true that confidential information given to the auditors was not made known to him, the Joint Disciplinary Committee or the Joint Appeals Board. This puts that evidence in the realm of unsubstantiated hearsay which should not have been relied on. It is contrary to due process to require an accused staff member to answer unsubstantiated allegations made by unknown persons. The staff member is entitled to confront his or her accusers. In the present case, if the organization was not willing to disclose the identity of the complainant's accusers, and had no other independent evidence to rely on, the charges should not have been brought."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; adversarial proceedings; communication to third party; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; due process; due process in disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; evidence; witness;
Judgment 2007
90th Session, 2001
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"Under the provisions [of the Staff Regulations], a contract may be terminated for unsatisfactory performance only after the employee has been served with a formal written warning allowing him or her three months to improve. That period which essentially aims at allowing the employee concerned enough time as may be constructively used to correct mistakes, make good shortcomings and improve both behaviour and working relations with other staff members must cover an effective period of three months during which the employee must be in a position to perform his or her duties correctly and to make full use of his or her abilities. The Tribunal considers that in this instance the complainant was not in such a position."
Keywords:
duty to inform; evidence; injury; medical fitness; notice; period; qualifications; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 1983
89th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant's contract was not extended. "It is true that the complainant was aware of the organization's intentions, having been informed of them several times, in particular, in a talk with the Director of the [organization's] service in France on 6 November 1997 and by the fax messages of 11 and 20 November 1997. Nevertheless, she was right to wait for official notification of an administrative decision from the competent authorities of [the organization] before challenging the measure. Although the letter of 16 January 1998 signed by the Director of the [organization's] service in France appears to be merely a letter of confirmation, it is the only official administrative decision adversely affecting the complainant. Her letter of 6 February 1998 seeking a review of it was therefore in time."
Keywords:
cause of action; confirmatory decision; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1912
88th Session, 2000
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The methodologies adopted by international organisations for setting and adjusting the remuneration of the staff, in principle, must enable results to be obtained that are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood [...] when the applicable method uses an external index, [...] not with a view to requiring the competent body to conform automatically to the index, but only as a simple orientation', which in itself is not a breach of any rights, the staff can only be protected against arbitrariness if the criteria used in deviating from the suggested orientation of the external index are objective, adequate and known to the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; bias; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; duty to inform; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1911
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"It is a general principle of the international civil service that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract and that the reason must be given to the staff member [...]. An official whose fixed-term contract is reaching expiry must be informed in a timely manner of the real reasons for the decision not to renew it [...]. In this case a mere reference to a letter sent to the complainant nearly two years previously cannot, in the absence of any other indication as to the real reasons for the decision to be taken, exempt the observatory from stating the grounds clearly."
Keywords:
contract; date; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; separation from service;
Judgment 1872
87th Session, 1999
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Since the procedure that was instigated was not a disciplinary one, but a procedure for the termination of the complainant's appointment for unsatisfactory service, the complainant needed to be informed in due time, either through a negative performance appraisal report, or through precise warnings, that the organisation was not satisfied with his performance and that if he did not improve it his appointment would be terminated." (see Judgment 1484)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; duty to inform; organisation's duties; performance report; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning;
Consideration 7
Extract:
This case is about a decision concerning termination of employment for unsatisfactory services.
"International officials have the right to be informed, from the beginning of the procedure, of the grounds which will serve as a basis for the administration's decision".
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service;
Judgment 1821
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] may be concisely stated as follows: (a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...]. (b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are 'stable, foreseeable and clearly understood' [...]. (c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...]. (d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...]." (See cited case law.)
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1817
86th Session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11(a)
Extract:
"Before dismissing someone on the grounds of performance an organisation must ordinarily give fairly prompt warning so as to allow for improvement. But all that is needed is that the staff member be aware of the risk of dismissal and of the need for improvement. If the staff member still proves unsatisfactory, dismissal will be in order even if founded on new shortcomings that are not the same as those that prompted the warning [...]. And again those rules hold good mutatis mutandis for ending probation". The Tribunal cites the case law.
Keywords:
case law; duty to inform; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
