Transfer (255, 256, 257,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Transfer
Total judgments found: 144
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(b)
Extract:
Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
"An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
"The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"In its submissions the Organization details the comprehensive training strategy that was established to enable the complainant to strengthen his skills. [T]hat strategy included participation in a number of courses and a half-time secondment to the IRIS project to allow the complainant exposure to the new system."
"The Tribunal concludes that, in the circumstances, the Organization did its utmost to respect the complainant's dignity and good name and not to cause him any harm. Despite the fact that the complainant did not possess the requisite skills, the grade P.3 position was designated at grade P.4 and his personal grade was not altered."
Keywords:
decision; grade; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; qualifications; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; training; transfer;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It is [...] clear that a transfer of a non-disciplinary nature «is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
Judgment 2819
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the transfer decision did not respect the complainant's dignity, the Tribunal will order that the complainant be reassigned, within 28 days, to a post that satisfies the core requirement of a grade A6 post, namely, the running of a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields, and that the decision of 22 December 2005 be quashed with effect from the date of his reassignment to the new post."
Keywords:
compensatory measure; grade; order; post; respect for dignity; terms of appointment; transfer; working conditions;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled that a transfer decision, if of a nondisciplinary nature, «must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). Given that the new tasks of the complainant involve none of the tasks specified in the Service Regulations for a grade A6 post, it must be concluded that the transfer did not respect his dignity. There are two other matters that indicate a lack of respect for the complainant's dignity. First, there is the Vice- President's e-mail of 9 January 2006 that was transmitted to all other Principal Directors in his Directorate and that clearly impugned the complainant's ability to perform his functions as head of the Joint Cluster Computers. [...] There was no need to justify the decision to the complainant's peers and the e-mail could only lessen his standing in their eyes. The second matter is that the complainant was not provided with any staff - not even a secretary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
grade; post; respect for dignity; status of complainant; terms of appointment; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2803
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal draws attention to the fact that, according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization's interests."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 476
Keywords:
abuse of power; lack of evidence; misuse of authority; transfer;
Judgment 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
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 2471
99th Session, 2005
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following a reorganisation the post the complainant held in the Department of General Services (AGS) was transferred to another department. In December 2002 she was reassigned to AGS, though in a different position. She asks to be given back the duties and responsibilites she had in AGS prior to the reorganisation. "The Tribunal considers that this request cannot be granted, for it would imply undoing the reorganisation and reversing the technological changes that have been made, which, as the complainant herself acknowledges in her submissions, were both necessary and predictable. Her position is thus untenable."
Keywords:
claim; difference; liability; post; post held by the complainant; reassignment; refusal; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 2346
97th Session, 2004
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Transfer decisions may be non disciplinary, disciplinary, or mixed in nature. But whether or not the transfer arises from disciplinary proceedings, the right of the staff member to be heard must be guaranteed. It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged amongst the applicable disciplinary sanctions; what is decisive is “whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings of the staff member which may, by their nature, give rise to disciplinary sanctions” (see Judgments 2229, under 3, and 2285, as well as the case law referred to). The protection of the staff member’s dignity is at stake.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2285
Keywords:
transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2314
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The post in respect of which the complainant was receiving a special post allowance was transferred but he has continued to perform the duties of the post. The Director-General has taken the view that transfer was equivalent to the abolition of the post and the allowance was terminated. "The principle of equal pay for work of equal value requires that, until a proper evaluation of the work performed by the complainant is carried out, he should be remunerated at a rate equivalent to that which he would have received by way of special post allowance for so long as he continues to perform all of the duties and responsibilities of the abolished post."
Keywords:
abolition of post; equal treatment; executive head; general principle; organisation's duties; payment; post; refusal; salary; special post allowance; transfer; work appraisal;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The post in respect of which the complainant was receiving a special post allowance was transferred but he has continued to perform the duties of the post. The Director-General has taken the view that transfer was equivalent to the abolition of the post and the allowance was terminated. The relevant Manual provision "does prohibit payment of a special post allowance when a post has been abolished. However, it does not and cannot relieve an employer of its duty to ensure proper remuneration for extra duties and responsibilities discharged by an employee over and above those of the substantive post which he or she holds."
Keywords:
abolition of post; executive head; official; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; post held by the complainant; provision; refusal; salary; special post allowance; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2285
96th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that it need not ascertain whether procedural irregularities were committed by the Ombudsperson, since the latter merely put forward a proposal which did not constitute a decision and which was addressed exclusively to the complainant, inviting her to relinquish her management responsibilities, that is, to resign. The only decision the complainant can challenge is precisely that which she alleges was unlawful, namely the decision [taken on behalf of the Director-General to release her from her position], which was independent of the Ombudsperson's proposal. Even though there is no doubt that it was the outcome of the Ombudsperson's investigations which led the [...] authorities to take the challenged decision, the lawfulness of that decision must be assessed independently of the Ombudsperson's proposal."
Keywords:
advisory body; decision; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; resignation; submissions; transfer;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a non-disciplinary nature is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications (see, for example, Judgments 1496, 1556, 1972 [...]). The transfer may be motivated by the need to eliminate tensions compromising the functioning of a department (see, for example, Judgments 132, 1018 and 1972)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 132, 1018, 1496, 1556, 1972
Keywords:
assignment; case law; decision; discontinuance; effect; formal requirements; general principle; grade; grounds; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post held by the complainant; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working relations;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, transfer decisions, which have been initiated by the administration and not at the staff member's request, may be disciplinary, non-disciplinary (in the interests of the organisation, independently of any fault) or even mixed in nature. [...] A transfer dictated by the interests of the organisation but which is also disciplinary in nature must clearly also comply with the specific rules protecting staff members in the case of disciplinary decisions (see Judgment 1929 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929
Keywords:
case law; decision; disciplinary measure; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; safeguard; transfer;
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the opportunity for the staff member concerned 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 amongst the disciplinary sanctions set out in the staff regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of alleged professional shortcomings [...] which may [...] give rise to disciplinary sanctions (see Judgments 1796, 1929 under 7, 1972 under 3 and 4, and the cases cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1796, 1929, 1972
Keywords:
case law; consequence; disciplinary measure; disclosure of evidence; evidence; formal requirements; misconduct; official; organisation's duties; participation; right to reply; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2226
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
In one case, the Tribunal conceded that the Organization's own interests are paramount, "but it must still, for the sake of proper management and mutual confidence, treat its staff fairly […]. It must give him a statement of the reasons for the transfer and the opportunity of responding" (see Judgment 1234, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234
Keywords:
motivation; transfer;
Judgment 2207
94th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The affair the complainant had with a national of the country of the duty station led to a series of incidents. "In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that it was in the organization's interest to terminate the complainant's assignment in Nairobi in order to maintain an untroubled working atmosphere in the service and to preserve its good relations with the host country. However, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law (see, in particular, Judgments 269 and 1231), the defendant could not terminate the complainant's appointment solely on that basis, without having taken appropriate steps to find him a new assignment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1231
Keywords:
case law; conduct; duty station; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer; working relations;
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 2172
94th Session, 2003
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The organisation extended the complainant's probationary period and transferred her following an unfavourable performance appraisal report. She submits that her supervisors failed to observe the procedure for the completion of performance appraisal reports. The Tribunal considers that "even if her supervisor appeared to follow the proper procedure by sending her the appraisal report [...] before the second-level supervisor had signed it, in order for the procedure to be meaningful, the second-level supervisor should not have written her comments until the complainant's supervisor had answered the memorandum [in which the complainant contested her appraisal]. The process is not a dialogue if one party does not listen to another. in this case, the complainant's supervisor did not consider the complainant's comments when preparing the evaluation. The evidence thus supports the complainant's allegation that the proper procedure was not followed [...] the decision to extend the probationary period was based on a flawed appraisal and the complainant should have been confirmed in her post."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; decision; different appraisals; extension of contract; mistake of fact; performance report; period; post; probationary period; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; reply; supervisor; transfer; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2129
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
The Organization's Regional Office was transferred from Brazzaville (Congo) to Harare (Zimbabwe). The amount of the per diem the complainants were paid was progressively reduced. "Since the travel per diem is merely intended to cover the essential expenses of a staff member on duty travel, including lodging and food, a high rate of travel per diem cannot be justified where duty travel, which by nature implies that the staff member will continue to work primarily at his or her original duty station, lasts for two years or more."
Keywords:
allowance; amount; assignment; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; extension of contract; official; payment; period; place of origin; purpose; rate; reduction of salary; transfer; travel expenses;
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 2025
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complaint was transferred to the field against his liking. At the end of the internal procedure, the organisation decided to reassign him to Headquarters. "It thereby admitted [...] that it had failed to assess the complainant's circumstances with the care required by administrative decisions that affect its staff. That in itself warrants the conclusion that, even though his assignment [to Headquarters] met the complainant's wishes in part, it did not fully make up for the injury caused by his transfer [to the field]. Consequently [...] the Director-General was wrong not to award him the compensation he had claimed."
Keywords:
compensation; executive head; field; headquarters; injury; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reassignment; refusal; request by a party; transfer;
Judgment 1972
89th Session, 2000
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The complainant, a director of a department, was made aware of two e-mails which were written in highly indecorous terms and, although private, commented on the running of the department. The Staff Union Committee protested against what it considered to be an invasion of privacy. The complainant did not respect the order to use discretion issued by the Director of Personnel. The Director-General, considering the complainant incapable in his function as Director of a department to maintain a stable and productive working environment, transferred him to a post of special advisor. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1018 [...], it is the duty of the head of any international organisation to take whatever measures can reduce tensions among his staff, and a transfer in the interests of the service may be an appropriate way of settling a conflictual situation. [...] However, since it cannot be regarded as disciplinary, the measure must, as the case law prescribes, heed the staff member's dignity and good name and not cause him undue suffering. Clearly, in this case the complainant was bound to view the measure as downgrading him. However, the fact that the organization was at pains to find him an assignment in keeping with his competence if not his wishes, to maintain his grade and to exercise the utmost discretion in dealing with the matter, shows that everything was done to protect his dignity as a senior official."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1018
Keywords:
conduct; discretion; downgrading; executive head; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; transfer; working relations;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
