Staff Regulations and Rules (232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff Regulations and Rules
Total judgments found: 494
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
Judgment 2982
110th Session, 2011
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
Replacement of a staff member in circumstances constituting harassment.
"The Tribunal has consistently held [...] that an organisation 'cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance' (see Judgment 2916, under 4). It is also well established that an organisation 'owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal' (see Judgment 2732, under 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2732, 2916
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; probationary period; staff assessment; staff regulations and rules; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Judgment 2972
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"An acquired right may derive 'from the terms of appointment, the staff rules or from a decision' (see Judgment 2696, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2696
Keywords:
acquired right; decision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2938
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034
Keywords:
accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by the complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vacancy;
Judgment 2936
109th Session, 2010
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]rifling differences in the respective situations of staff members do not justify different treatment where the people concerned are in what may be regarded as comparable, albeit not identical positions vis-à-vis the rule applying to them [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 792, 2066
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; breach; difference; equal treatment; general principle; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2922
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he procedure leading to titularisation was never undertaken in the case of the complainant. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the complainant did not have the status of an established official within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the [ILO] Staff Regulations. It follows that she is not justified in claiming that there has been a violation of the formal and procedural rules applicable to the termination of the appointment of an established official [...]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 2.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations
Keywords:
breach; formal flaw; formal requirements; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; termination of employment; titularization; written rule;
Judgment 2917
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(d)
Extract:
"By twice giving the complainant a rating [- rating 0 -] that is not envisaged in the [relevant texts], the supervisor breached the rules applicable to the process of assessing a staff member's performance. Furthermore, this kind of rating is likely to leave the staff member concerned feeling that his competencies or performance in the areas assessed are so substandard that they do not even merit an assessment on the part of his supervisor. Such conduct may be expected to foster in the staff member a deep sense of personal inadequacy. As such a rating has no basis in law and is contrary to the rules of conduct applicable to the personal relations between international organisations and their staff, it cannot be upheld."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; performance report; rating; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member's skills and performance."
Keywords:
bias; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 2916
109th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an 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 [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414
Keywords:
case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[E]ven though notification of non-renewal is simply notification that the contract will expire according to its terms, the Tribunal's case law has it that that notification is to be treated as a decision having legal effect for the purposes of Article VII(1) of its Statute [...]. Accordingly, it may be challenged in the same way as any other administrative decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317, 2573
Keywords:
case law; contract; decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; notice; right of appeal; safeguard; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2915
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The fact that the Director General did not sign the letter [informing the complainant that her request was denied] does not mean that he did not take the relevant decision. The signing of the letter by the Director of [the Human Resources Management Department] is consistent with normal personnel practice. Moreover, the presumption of regularity applies in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary."
Keywords:
competence; evidence; executive head; formal requirements; practice; staff regulations and rules; vested competence;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Judgment 2910
109th Session, 2010
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainant was entitled to have her grievance dealt with in accordance with the policy and the procedures laid down in [...] the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Agency's failure to do so constitutes not only a breach of its own policy and rules but, as well, a breach of its duty of care towards the complainant. In Judgment 2636 the Tribunal pointed out that this duty includes the obligation to ensure that allegations of harassment are "properly and promptly investigated". The Agency seeks to avoid responsibility for the delay that occurred [until] the complainant [...] enquired about the status of her request for investigation. However, it was for the Agency, not the complainant, to ensure that the matter was properly and promptly investigated. Moreover, and even if informal methods of resolution are to be explored, it is important that the facts be promptly ascertained to avoid any possibility that an investigation will be compromised by delay."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636
Keywords:
case law; delay; inquiry; investigation; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Following his promotion to grade A5, the complainant was informed that his promotion to that grade was due to a clerical error and that the Administration's intention was to promote him to grade A4(2). Thus, his promotion to grade A5 was reversed. He challenged that decision but the President decided to maintain it. The Tribunal found that his promotion to grade A5 stemmed from a purely factual error and not from the Administration's genuine intention and that it could therefore be reversed. It nevertheless awarded him compensation for moral injury.
"The nub of this case is whether the President could lawfully reverse the decision [...] to promote the complainant to grade A5 [...]. Since the Service Regulations do not contain any specific provisions governing the conditions for the reversal or revocation of administrative decisions, this question can be settled only by referring to the general principles of law applied by the Tribunal."
Keywords:
decision; individual decision; intention of parties; mistake of fact; no provision; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The various paths to promotion within an international organisation such as the EPO are regulated by complex rules with which the staff cannot be assumed to be fully conversant and it is plainly up to the Organisation to ensure that the decisions which it takes in this respect are lawful."
Keywords:
organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2904
108th Session, 2010
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The first substantive argument raised by the complainant regards the failure by the human resources specialist to consider the revised post description that was submitted to the Human Resources Management Division in 2002. In the Tribunal's view, as the revised post description had not been properly reviewed and accepted by the relevant division in accordance with the applicable rules (specifically Manual paragraph 280.333), the specialist was correct to disregard it while conducting the desk audit, referring instead to the post description on file."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874
Keywords:
grade; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12 and 14
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Organization breached its duty of care in failing to accommodate him in another post or in a manner less drastic than the non-renewal of his appointment. [...]
The Organization had no obligation under the 200 Series of the Staff Rules to find an alternative post for the complainant. However, it had a duty to explore with him possible options prior to his separation. The failure to do so was an affront to his dignity and showed a lack of respect for him as a highly regarded long-serving staff member."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; respect for dignity; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2892
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-8
Extract:
"The ITU argues that the [...] complaint with respect to the complainant's dismissal is [...] irreceivable on the basis that, as he has not pursued his internal appeal following his request [...] for a final review of the decision to dismiss him [...]. [T]he question remains whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules permit an internal appeal once a person has ceased to be a staff member. If they do not, the steps taken by the complainant to initiate an internal appeal were ineffective. More to the point, there were no internal remedies that he could pursue before lodging his complaint."
"Chapter XI of the ITU Staff Regulations and Staff Rules makes provision for appeals by staff members. [...] There is nothing in Chapter XI of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to indicate that a former staff member may lodge an appeal as therein provided. [...] In these circumstances, the term "staff member" in Chapter XI is to be construed as restricted to a serving staff member."
"In Judgment 2840, also a case where the relevant regulations and rules relating to internal appeals referred only to a "staff member" and not a "former staff member", it was held that "where a decision has not been communicated until after a staff member has separated from service, the former staff member does not have recourse to the internal appeal process". The same is true of a staff member who has either been summarily dismissed or dismissed with such short notice that it is impracticable to commence internal appeal proceedings before the dismissal takes effect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2582, 2840
Keywords:
definition; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; official; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2884
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"As the Internal Appeals Committee erred in law in finding that it was not necessary to include the use of an assessment centre in the vacancy notice, it follows that the President's decision endorsing this view involves an error of law. This error would ordinarily result in the impugned decision and the underlying selection procedure being set aside. However, having regard to the circumstances and the complainant's failure to demonstrate any link between the breach of the Service Regulations and the outcome of the process, the decision and the process will not be set aside. This should not be construed in any way as condoning the conduct of the EPO. In accordance with its power under Article VIII of the Statute, the Tribunal decides that the complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros for the breach of the Service Regulations of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; flaw; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 13 and 16-18
Extract:
"The complainant submits that the selection procedure was flawed. The failure to indicate in the vacancy notice that there would be an individual assessment performed by a consulting firm and the failure to include the particular management skills that would be assessed by the firm constitute, in her view, a violation of Articles 2 and 5 of Annex II to the Service Regulations. She adds that it follows from the flaws in the notice that there was a lack of information concerning the kinds of tests the competition would be based on, as required by Annex II."
"The Tribunal considers that the Internal Appeals Committee erred in law in finding that the failure to indicate that an individual assessment would be performed by a third party in the vacancy notice did not constitute a breach of the applicable Service Regulations. In essence, the Committee found that, in view of the nature of the position being filled, the complainant's seniority and the widespread use being made of assessment centres, the complainant would have known that an assessment in such circumstances formed part of the selection procedure. The fundamental flaw in this reasoning is that these are irrelevant considerations in relation to the legal question as to whether the Service Regulations require the use of an assessment centre to be included in a vacancy notice."
"Article 2 of Annex II to the Service Regulations requires that a notice of competition must specify, among other things, "the kind of competition (whether on the basis of either qualifications or tests, or of both qualifications and tests)" and "where the competition is on the basis of tests, what kind they will be and how they will be marked"."
"As the individual assessment performed by the consulting firm was, at least in part, a testing mechanism, the failure to mention it in the vacancy notice constitutes a breach of Article 2 of Annex II."
Keywords:
breach; competition; flaw; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2877
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 2870
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6, 9 and 15
Extract:
The complaints raise the question whether Article 71 of the Office's Service Regulations - which provides for the payment of an education allowance to employees who are not nationals of the country in which they are serving and, in certain limited circumstances, to nationals of that country - offends the principle of equality. The complainants contend that, at least for the purposes of post-secondary education, Article 71 proceeds by reference to an irrelevant consideration - nationality - and, if it does not, the different treatment directed by that article is neither appropriate nor adapted to the difference involved.
"[N]ationality is the primary distinction mandated by Article 71 [...]."
"In principle, the nationality of the employee is properly to be regarded as a relevant difference warranting different treatment, including with respect to post-secondary education."
"An international organisation such as the EPO, with a large workforce composed of many different nationalities, is entitled to proceed by reference to a rule applicable to all non nationals provided that the rule is appropriate and adapted to their general circumstances. And that is so even if its application in individual cases is less than perfect. Article 71 of the Service Regulations is appropriate and adapted to the general circumstances of the children of non-nationals."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 71 of the Service Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2313, 2638
Keywords:
allowance; difference; education expenses; equal treatment; nationality; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 | next >
|
