Difference (603,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Difference
Total judgments found: 116
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 1370
77th Session, 1994
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant changed categories. "[T]he fall in the complainant's earnings is due to factors which are beyond the Union's control inasmuch as they derive from the [United Nations] common system. The ITU was under no duty to reverse a decision which the complainant had consented to and which, until 1991 at any rate, was to his financial advantage."
Keywords:
acceptance; amount; cause; coordinated organisations; decision; difference; lack of injury; organisation's duties; salary;
Judgment 1127
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"The purpose of probation is [...] to determine whether the official is capable of performing satisfactorily 'assignments of a kind and degree of difficulty' that correspond to those he was recruited for." The complainant has failed to show that "the assignments she may have been given were in a different area of work or were of greater complexity and difficulty than those she was appointed to perform".
Keywords:
assignment; difference; lack of evidence; post description; probationary period; purpose;
Judgment 1096
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII." (See also Judgment 1095.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1095
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1095
70th Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"A complaint is receivable under Article VII(3) where the administration fails to take any decision upon the claim within sixty days of the date of notification of it. Once an organisation has accepted the Tribunal's Statute it may not derogate from Article VII(3) by dint of internal rules of its own. The only difference Eurocontrol's own Staff Regulations may make is that it is estopped from objecting to receivability when, in reliance on its own time limit, a staff member has filed a complaint that would be receivable under its Staff Regulations but out of time under Article VII."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(3) OF THE STATUTE
Keywords:
complaint; consequence; difference; failure to answer claim; good faith; iloat statute; precedence of rules; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 1051
69th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
ITU Staff Regulation 3.11.II.C.1 provides for differential reimbursement of education expenses according to whether or not the educational institution provides the child with board. The complainant submits that such a provision is discriminatory; as his son attends a school which does not provide board, he gets a smaller amount than others. The Tribunal holds that different contingencies call for different means of reimbursement.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 3.11.II.C.1
Keywords:
difference; education expenses; equal treatment; refund;
Judgment 1032
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The complainant points out inconsistencies between the English, French and German texts of [Article 12(1) of the EPO Pension Scheme Regulations and Rule 12.1/1(i)(b) of the Implementing Rules]. The three language versions, being equally authentic, shall be deemed to bear the same meaning. Where there are inconsistencies the Tribunal will apply the construction which, having regard to the purpose of the provisions, best reconciles the various versions."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 12(1) OF THE EPO PENSION SCHEME REGULATIONS; RULE 12.1/1(I)(B) OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES
Keywords:
authentic version; criteria; difference; interpretation; language of rule; purpose; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1020
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Consultation does not require negotiation, let alone approval. The staff representatives merely state their opinion, and it is not binding on the administration." The Tribunal is satisfied that in the instant case the required consultations took place.
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consultation; difference; organisation's duties;
Judgment 1019
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Vide Judgment 1020, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1020
Keywords:
collective bargaining; consultation; difference; organisation's duties;
Judgment 990
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. The scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the Staff Regulations, did not come into force until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension, however, was reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. The Tribunal holds that "the ILO is undoubtedly bound [...] by the provisions of the Staff Regulations so long as they remain in force and is therefore liable towards the complainant for the breach of them. That its difficulty is due to the stand taken by the fund cannot alter its liability as employer towards its staff."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; difference; effective date; fund regulations; liability; organisation; payment; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; reduction of salary; scale; staff regulations and rules; unjspf;
Summary
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new, lower scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. That scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations, did not come into force for officials serving in the organization until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension was nonetheless reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. She challenges the Director-General's implied rejection of her internal complaint seeking to have her pension reckoned according to the old scale up to 31 March 1985 or, failing that, compensation. The Organization submits that the measure had come to her attention through various channels and that the complaint was out of time. The Tribunal holds that the Staff Regulations contained an explicit provision which set out the staff's rights. The staff were not told of any valid ilo decision not to abide by the Staff Regulations. The Organization's contention that the complaint is irreceivable is mistaken.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; complaint; difference; effective date; fund regulations; pension; pensionable remuneration; provision; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 971
66th Session, 1989
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant claims payment under Annex C. But only the WHO, not the complainant, is entitled to payment under this annex, which concerns its insurance policy. The policy is exclusively a matter between the WHO and its insurers. In application of its administrative practice, as reflected in paragraph 365 of Manual II.7, the organization does hand the difference over to the staff member if the sum it has actually received from the insurers more than covers its liability to him."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PROVISION II.7
Keywords:
amount; complainant; difference; health insurance; insurance; organisation; payment; practice;
Judgment 962
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Paragraph 4 of Circular 34 of 15 May 1979 says that "for the purpose of calculating seniority for advancement in the prescribed steps within the relevant grade, the period of part-time work will be taken into account in the same way as in the case of normal full-time work". The Tribunal holds that the EPO's practice of counting part-time work towards seniority for promotion on a pro-rata basis on the principle that promotion is a reward for service rendered is in no way at odds with the guidelines in the material circular as the complainant mistakenly argues.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 4 OF CIRCULAR 34 OF 15 MAY 1979
Keywords:
consequence; difference; part-time employment; professional experience; promotion; proportionality; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 957
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends that his professional experience was not properly reckoned in accordance with Circular 144 of 2 September 1985. He alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as his seniority was lower than that granted to someone with equivalent professional experience recruited as an A3 examiner. His plea fails "because the material provisions of the service regulations deal with promotion within the organisation as distinct from the attributions of grade and step on appointment: the comparison he is drawing is between staff members who are not in the same position in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 953
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The organisation has not discriminated against the complainant. Appointment is different from promotion and different rules may apply in determining the step due on appointment and the step due on promotion."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 944
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The internal appeal was signed by Mr. [E.] whereas the complaint is signed by Mr. [E.]'s wife. "There being no need for a ruling of general purport on the issue, the Tribunal holds that in the circumstances of the case the complaint may be deemed receivable. [...] The complainant's husband, [...] like her, is an official of the EPO; they concur on the material issue and the purpose of the suit relates to a matter of social security for spouses".
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; difference; exception; family relationship; internal appeal; locus standi; marital status; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 934
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant is mistaken in alleging breach of the principle of double jeopardy, since the grounds for the two reprimands were different.
Keywords:
censure; difference; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; grounds;
Judgment 926
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"It is plain from the text [of Article 72 of the Service Regulations] that the allowance is to be refused to an employee who is a citizen of the country where he is stationed unless at the time of appointment he has been continuously resident in another country for at least ten years. That is indeed the purport of the English and French texts, which are clear: the terms 'résident' and 'résidaient' do not necessarily connote permanent or established residence. The English and French versions being explicit, the German is to be interpreted in a way that reconciles all three; and in its English and French versions 72[3] requires that a citizen of the Federal Republic serving at Munich shall be paid the allowance only if at the time of appointment he has been 'continuously resident for at least 10 years' outside the Federal Republic."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
difference; duty station; interpretation; language of rule; nationality; non-resident allowance; residence;
Judgment 895
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant contends that his seniority should be reckoned from the date at which he received a technical school diploma, before earning his university engineering degree. He submits that three British universities regard the technical school diploma as equivalent to a British Bachelor of Science degree. The Tribunal holds that "until there is a common system of scientific diplomas and degrees in Europe there are bound to be differences between the British and Dutch systems. In the circumstances, recognising such differences is not in breach of the principle of equal treatment."
Keywords:
date; degree; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 870
63rd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Such service [technical assistance] may not count for the purpose of personal promotion unless there is an express rule to that effect. There is not. [...] Periods of service [on technical co-operation projects] do not count, not even when, like the complainant, [experts] are later appointed to the staff at headquarters."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; difference; enforcement; field; headquarters official; interpretation; personal promotion; project personnel;
Judgment 862
63rd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Suspension is temporary repeal: while in force it makes the text void. What distinguishes it from repeal is that it is not final, its purpose being to provide against some temporary contingency, and it need only be lifted for the text to come into force again. But repeal is final and once a text has been repealed the law-maker has to adopt a new one to bring the provisions back into effect."
Keywords:
binding character; difference; effect; enforcement; period; provision; provisional measures; staff regulations and rules; suspensive action; written rule;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Article 3.1.1.2 of the ILO Staff Regulations provides for periodic adjustments to pensionable remuneration. The application of this regulation was suspended effective 1 April 1985. The complainants argue that the absence of an adjustment on 1 April 1986 breaches their acquired rights. "The complainants say they cannot put a figure on the loss sustained but they submit a table showing losses that range from 13 to 39 per cent according to grade. The table does not distinguish between loss due to the measures of which the Tribunal was informed in the earlier proceedings - and which it declared lawful - and loss alleged to be due to the failure to revise the scale on 1 April 1986. So in any event the Tribunal cannot but endorse its ruling in Judgment 832 under 16." The complaints are dismissed.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
ILOAT Judgment(s): 832
Keywords:
acquired right; adjustment; amount; breach; date; difference; enforcement; grade; injury; pension; pension entitlements; pensionable remuneration; provision; reckoning; res judicata; staff regulations and rules; subsidiary; suspensive action;
Judgment 851
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"There is no breach of the principle of equal treatment in the fact that the guidelines, so as to attract qualified people, set a higher value on a few kinds of experience, particularly those that are closely relevant to EPO work."
Keywords:
difference; equal treatment; professional experience; reckoning; seniority;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"Some differences will have to be allowed in the content and standard of engineering degrees until there is international standardisation. For an international organisation like the EPO the only fair and practical approach is to demand for an examiner's post the qualifications required for equivalent duties in the applicant's home country."
Keywords:
date; degree; difference; equal treatment; general principle; professional experience; reckoning; seniority; terms of appointment;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
