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 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that individual members of the Staff Committee must have the power to file suit as representatives of that body (Judgments 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036). The rationale is that if the Staff Committee is not able to file suit, the only way to preserve common rights and interests of staff is to allow individual officials to act as representatives (see Judgment 1315, under 8, referring to Judgment 1269, under 13)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1147, 1269, 1315, 2036
Keywords:
case law; collective rights; grounds; official; right of appeal; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"Although the complainant provided the report of [her doctor] to the Joint Appeals Panel, that did not amount to implied authorisation for it to be given to [her two successive supervisors] for their comments (see Judgment 2271, under 7). There were other means available to the Administration to obtain answers from [the supervisors] to the claims made by the complainant. The disclosure to them of the medical report was a serious breach of confidence and one that, in the circumstances, was particularly insensitive."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body; medical opinion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 2522
100th Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal concludes that the internal appeal proceedings were not conducted with due diligence or with the care owed by an international organisation to its staff. The complainant had reason to believe that the Agency was making every effort to hamper the proceedings to prevent them from being concluded within a reasonable time. He was not informed of the final outcome of his internal appeal until nearly two months after the Director General had taken his final decision. Moreover, the latter replied to the complainant's request for review more than three months after the request was submitted, and only after an appeal had been lodged with the Joint Appeals Board. The Tribunal concludes from the above that the complainant suffered moral injury."
Keywords:
decision; delay; due process; evidence; internal appeal; late decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 2394
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.
Keywords:
acceptance; allowance; competition; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination of employment;
Judgment 2358
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal asserts categorically that, as a matter of law, the ambiguities must be resolved in the manner most favourable to staff members. That is simply an application of the general rule requiring that any ambiguous text should be construed against the interest of the person responsible for drafting it and in favour of the person upon whom it is imposed. (For a recent application of the rule, see Judgment 2290.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2290
Keywords:
enforcement; general principle; interpretation; organisation's interest; staff member's interest; written rule;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; career; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;
Considerations 22-23
Extract:
"There are two aspects to the rule against retroactivity. The first is a rule of interpretation which requires that a provision not be construed as having retroactive effect unless that is clearly intended. The second is a substantive rule of international civil service law which, as explained in Judgment 1589, prevents a retroactive change in the legal status of staff save in limited circumstances [...]. However, to state the rule in this way is not to expose what is meant by 'retroactive'. In general terms, a provision is retroactive if it effects some change in existing legal status, rights, liabilities or interests from a date prior to its proclamation, but not if it merely affects the procedures to be observed in the future with respect to such status, rights, liabilities or interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1589
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; case law; collective rights; condition; consequence; date; definition; effect; exception; general principle; international civil service principles; interpretation; non-retroactivity; official; organisation's interest; procedure before the tribunal; provision; publication; purpose; right; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2227
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was informed by a letter of 22 December 1999 that the administration reserved the right to approve the photocopying and distribution of circulars issued by staff representatives. "The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 911 [...], that a staff association enjoys broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents, but that like any other freedom such freedom has its bounds. thus any action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, and likewise gross abuse of freedom of speech, are inadmissible. But the prevention of such abuse cannot give the administration a power of prior censorship over the communication of written information produced by the groups and associations concerned. Herein lies the problem in this case: the Office considers it has a general right to authorise, which it maintains it uses only with moderation, but the limits of such authorisation are by no means clear. The Tribunal cannot set aside a general decision on the grounds that it does not offer the guarantees that are in any case available to staff members on the basis of the general principles of international civil service law, as established and interpreted by the Tribunal and other international administrative tribunals. These principles confine the administration's scope of action to cases where there is gross abuse of the right to freedom of expression or lack of protection of the individual interests of persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private lives. And it is in the light of these principles that the letter of 22 December 1999 [...] should be interpreted. a refusal to grant an authorisation may be regarded as lawful only if it complies with the above principles."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911
Keywords:
acceptance; case law; collective rights; exception; freedom of speech; general decision; general principle; iloat; international civil service principles; interpretation; judicial review; limits; official; organisation; outside activity; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity; tribunal;
Judgment 2191
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Organisations must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting" a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed.
Keywords:
discretion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A staff member who files an appeal is entitled to expect a decision to be taken within a reasonable time. Since an internal appeal is a necessary prelude to judicial review, the organization too must respect the need for expeditious proceedings. In this case more than two-and-a-half years elapsed between the complainant's appeal to the Appeals Committee and the Director-General's decision to reject it. Circumstances and the nature of the case demanded an expeditious appeal procedure. Since, in the internal appeal, the complainant was challenging a decision not to keep her on and claiming reinstatement, she needed to know quickly what the outcome of the appeal would be. Indeed, her future to some extent depended on it. Though it raised some delicate issues, the case was not particularly complex. The conclusion is that the appeal was not sufficiently expeditious. The amount of time usually needed to deal with such a case was far exceeded. As a result the complainant suffered injury warranting redress."
Keywords:
contract; delay; exception; internal appeal; internal appeals body; material damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
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 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2017
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An organisation must interpret the statements of a staff member in good faith and [...] as part of its duty to spare the staff member unnecessary injury, it may also be called upon to provide procedural guidance and help to put right a mistake (see Judgment 1734, [...] under 3(g))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734
Keywords:
good faith; injury; interpretation; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's interest; statement of intent;
Judgment 2014
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that either there was sufficient admissible evidence of the guilt of the complainant as an accused staff member or there was not. If there was not enough admissible evidence to convince the person making a decision, the charge should have been dismissed; if there was enough such evidence, then there should have been a finding of guilty. What is not permissible is to take a stand somewhere between the two, which is what the [Joint Appeals] Board did."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; due process; evidence; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; presumption of innocence; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2003
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants did not challenge the initial decisions denying them an installation grant and therefore "those decisions became final and the complainants were barred from challenging them by filling up application forms years later and claiming the quashing of the decisions refusing them by implication the allowance for which their assignment to Maastricht made them eligible. The Joint Committee for Disputes was right to cite the principle of legal certainty which must govern relations between an organisation and its staff' and to note that it was not possible to [exempt] the persons concerned from the time bar, which the Tribunal is in any event bound to apply since it is mandatory'."
Keywords:
binding character; decision; effective date; exception; iloat statute; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; time bar; time limit;
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;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As to the absence of one month's notice, [the organization] rightly points out that the obligation arising from the provisions of the Staff Regulations applies to dismissal and not to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment. Nonetheless, the case law says that an organisation must always give the reasons for a decision not to renew an appointment and those reasons must be notified to the staff member within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; precedence of rules; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1929
88th Session, 2000
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Compulsory transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right of the staff member to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the option for him to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. [...] It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged among the disciplinary sanctions set out in the Staff Regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of the alleged professional shortcomings of the staff member which may, by their nature, give rise to disciplinary sanctions."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; right to reply; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant was transferred without prior notice and without an opportunity to be heard. "Taken together, the material circumstances give grounds for considering that the impugned transfer partly constituted a hidden disciplinary sanction. [...] The impugned decision must, therefore, be set aside and the procedure resumed from the point at which it was flawed [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 10 OF THE UPU STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; remand; right to reply; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 1927
88th Session, 2000
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"In practice, while suspension is indeed an essentially interim measure which maintains the rights of the staff member concerned, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 353 [...], it is nevertheless a decision which causes injury to the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 353
Keywords:
case law; disciplinary procedure; injury; misconduct; safeguard; staff member's interest; suspension;
Judgment 1924
88th Session, 2000
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant accepted a settlement proposal by the organization within the imposed deadline. However, four months went by and he heard nothing more on the subject so he wrote to inquire when the settlement would be effected. One month later he was informed that the organization had learned that certain costs would be higher than it had foreseen, therefore, it preferred that the dispute be decided by the Administrative Tribunal. "Efforts made for the resolution of disputes are to be encouraged and the principle of good faith requires that if an offer is accepted the other party cannot then withdraw from it. The offer [...] should, accordingly, be implemented."
Keywords:
acceptance; good faith; intention of parties; offer; offer withdrawn; organisation's duties; promise; settlement out of court; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1917
88th Session, 2000
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal noted that since 1974 the health insurance contract has always been concluded for periods of one year and has even been amended several times. It does not agree that the complainant has an absolute claim to a specific system of health insurance, therefore, there has been no impairment of an acquired right.
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; health insurance; insurance; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1780
85th Session, 1998
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6(a)
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent both employer and employee must show good faith. For the Organisation, that means giving its staff notice of any facts or rules that may influence their dealings with it [...]. But [...] the Organisation will not be financially liable unless the staff member has suffered financial injury."
Keywords:
case law; duty to inform; good faith; injury; liability; material injury; organisation; organisation's duties; staff member's interest;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
