Staff member's interest (208,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff member's interest
Total judgments found: 122
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 2895
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19 and 20
Extract:
The complainant challenged WHO's decision to "waive" in her case the medical examination on separation provided for in Staff Rule 1085. The Tribunal held that the exit medical examination is a mandatory part of the separation protocol. It awarded the complainant moral damages.
"Staff Rule 1085 reads:
"A staff member shall be examined immediately prior to his departure by the Staff Physician or by a physician designated by the Organization. If a staff member fails to undergo this medical examination within a reasonable time limit fixed by the Organization, then claims against the Organization arising out of illness or injury which allegedly occurred before the effective date of separation shall not be entertained; furthermore, the effective date of separation shall not be affected."
"The wording of the above provision makes it clear that a medical examination is mandatory. It follows from the mandatory nature of the medical examination on separation, coupled with the fact that it engages the interests of both parties and not just those of the Organization, that WHO could not unilaterally decide that in the circumstances the requirement of Staff Rule 1085 had been fulfilled. Although that rule contemplates the situation where a staff member fails to undergo the exit medical examination, it also sets out the potentially adverse consequence that the lack of such an examination may have for the staff member in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1085
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The Organization's assertion that the complainant did not specifically request to have an exit medical examination is correct. However, the exit medical examination requirement is not contingent on a staff member requesting to have the examination; it is a mandatory part of the separation protocol."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that WHO's unilateral decision to "waive" the exit medical examination constitutes a violation of Staff Rule 1085. It also finds that, although there is no evidence that the decision was motivated by malice, the manner in which the Organization dealt with this issue was an affront to the complainant's dignity."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee. The Tribunal held that to the extent that the new specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office it should have been referred to the General Advisory Committee.
"It is trite law that "where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated" (see Judgment 2339, under 5). It is equally well established that if reasons are required, the reasons must be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible so that a complainant knows why the appeal has been rejected and he is in a position to assess whether a complaint should be filed with the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; right; staff member's interest;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2876
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 27
Extract:
In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
"In Judgment 2875, [...] which raises the same issue in substance as the present case, the Tribunal held that, to the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]. Although the complainants in this case have not based their arguments on the Pension Scheme Regulations, the rulings in considerations 6 to 10 of that judgment are equally applicable to their complaints."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2875
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2875
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
In their capacity as members of the General Advisory Committee, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee.
"[T]o the extent that the specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office, it should have been referred to the [General Advisory Committee]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 10(2) Pension Scheme Regulations; Articles 1(5) and 38(3) Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
Keywords:
advisory body; amendment to the rules; consultation; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
"[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2840
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."
Keywords:
duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."
Keywords:
assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."
Keywords:
assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Upon being informed of the complainant's forthcoming marriage to the Director of her division, it was entirely proper for the Organization to consider whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules or its policy were engaged. It was equally proper to obtain advice on these matters. However, there was no need to canvas the views of some 40 staff members. [...] While properly structured consultations with staff through their association on matters of policy and regulations is appropriate, the canvassing of individual staff members in these circumstances was highly inappropriate and their individual views were irrelevant."
Keywords:
consultation; marital status; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2779
106th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has found, even though he was not competent to make the representation, Mr [...] made a promise to the complainant that his appointment would be extended beyond statutory retirement age. Mr R. also fostered the complainant's false belief that the promise would be honoured. Despite the complainant's numerous requests over a period of approximately 18 months clearly explaining his belief that a promise had been made, the Secretary-General chose to ignore the opportunities to correct the complainant's misapprehensions and permitted him to act on his mistaken belief. Lastly, the Secretary-General failed to make a decision on the complainant's request for an extension in a timely fashion. This conduct constitutes a breach of the duty to respect the complainant's dignity. At the very least, the Secretary-General should have notified the complainant that the Union did not accept the obligation when the matter was first brought to his attention. This conduct has caused the complainant moral injury for which he must be compensated in the form of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; decision-maker; duration of appointment; extension beyond retirement age; good faith; injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; promise; respect for dignity; retirement; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2768
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
"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 employees in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2116, under 5). This duty of care is greater in a rather opaque or particularly complex legal situation. [...] When the complainant took up employment with the Office it had been possible, for at least a year, to obtain the transfer of pension rights from the USS to the Office's pension scheme. But it is clear from the file that the applicable rules were so complex that a mere perusal of the documentation would not enable employees to understand them fully. Furthermore, the Administration and staff members were still largely unfamiliar with the possibility of transferring pension rights. In the light of these particular circumstances, the Office's duty to inform could not be confined to merely handing the applicable texts to the staff members concerned by a possible transfer. This duty demanded that the Office, having obtained such information as was necessary, should draw to the attention of the staff members concerned the possibility of obtaining a transfer of pension rights and should inform them of the procedure to be followed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; participation; pension; pension entitlements; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;
Judgment 2767
106th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"The Director-General did not rely on any special feature of the case in order to justify his refusal to follow the recommendation of the Board [to inform the complainant of the names of the IRG members who had examined her case]. In this respect, the argument that the complainant did in fact find out who was on the IRG panel at the hearing on 7 July 2006 is inoperative [...]. It must be concluded that the Director-General refused without good reason to rectify a procedural flaw by not informing the complainant of the identity of the IRG members."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; organisation's duties; recommendation; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2766
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is not so much that applicants have an absolute right to confidentiality, but rather a right to the reasonable protection of their privacy. The Tribunal finds that the participation of the staff representative, in an observer capacity and not taking part in the Selection Board's meetings, does not unreasonably affect the complainant's privacy."
Keywords:
competition; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; selection board; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2757
105th Session, 2008
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t is a fundamental aspect of due process that a person should not take a decision in a matter in which he or she has a personal interest. [However, in] some circumstances, necessity will direct that a decision be taken by a person with a direct personal interest in the outcome."
Keywords:
bias; decision; due process; exception; organisation's interest; safeguard; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2700
104th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal [...] draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the circumstances, an official is always entitled to have his case judged in proper, transparent and fair proceedings which comply with the general principles of law."
Keywords:
due process; equity; formal requirements; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2637
103rd Session, 2007
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant requests that the effective date of the administration's decision to grant her international status be changed to December 1991 instead of August 2005. "[I]t may be noted that, exceptionally, retroactive effect may be granted to a decision where the effect is favourable to a staff member (see Judgment 1130). In the present case, however, a grant of retroactivity would confer no benefit on the complainant either in relation to home leave or education grant. In the circumstances, the rule against retroactivity should be applied."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1130
Keywords:
allowance; amendment to the rules; claim; date; decision; education expenses; effect; enforcement; exception; general principle; home leave; non-local status; non-retroactivity; official; staff member's interest; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 2635
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is [...] well established in the case law that the preservation of harmony and good relations in a working environment are legitimate interests. A decision to transfer a staff member will not be invalid if taken for that purpose. Accordingly, in the present case, even if the decision to transfer the complainant was motivated by a desire to resolve relational difficulties, provided the new position accorded reasonably with her qualifications and respected her dignity, there would be no basis on which to interfere with the decision."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; grounds; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer; working conditions; working relations;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"While the head of an organisation must take into account the organisation's interests and the staff member's abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organisation (see Judgment 883)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883
Keywords:
difference; discretion; executive head; organisation; organisation's interest; qualifications; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2630
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[A]s held in Judgment 1712, '[t]he necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury'. Moreover, the case law has it that 'receivability does not depend on proving actual and certain injury', all that a complainant need show is that the decision under challenge 'may impair the rights and safeguards that an international civil servant claims under staff regulations or contract of employment' (see Judgment 1330, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 1712
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; decision; effect; injury; official; receivability of the complaint; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2626
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(a)
Extract:
"A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2625
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, a retired civil servant, asks the Tribunal to declare unlawful some measures applying to pensioners. "The provisions in question are regulatory texts applying to all retired employees of the Office. Since they entered into force long ago the complainant may challenge their lawfulness only by appealing against a decision applying those provisions which actually causes present damage to his personal interests (see in particular Judgments 1852, under 3, 2379, under 5, and 2459, under 7(b))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2379, 2459
Keywords:
cause of action; claim; effective date; enforcement; general decision; individual decision; injury; provision; retirement; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2583
102nd Session, 2007
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[A]ccording to precedent (see for example Judgments 1330 and 2204), staff members have an obvious interest in ascertaining the value of their pension rights as soon as possible, even if they are still serving: the receivability of their action does not depend on proving actual and certain injury, but on their having an interest in obtaining recognition of their future rights, regardless of whether their pleadings are well founded."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1330, 2204
Keywords:
amount; case law; condition; consequence; injury; pension entitlements; receivability of the complaint; staff member's interest; subsidiary;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
