Cause of action (77,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 273

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >

• Judgment 4572

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his request for recission in which he described the moral injury caused to him by the entry into force of new regulatory provisions.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant seeks the setting aside of the Appeals Committee’s opinion that preceded the decision of 16 June 2021.That claim must also be rejected as clearly irreceivable because, according to established case law, such an opinion does not constitute an act adversely affecting the complainant and therefore cannot be appealed (see Judgment 4477, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4477
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; cause of action; report of the internal appeals body;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [I]t is settled case law that a complainant is not entitled to challenge directly general decisions [...]. As the Tribunal noted in Judgment 3736, consideration 3, a general decision that requires individual implementation cannot be impugned; the lawfulness of a general decision may only be challenged in the context of a challenge to the individual decisions that are taken on its basis (see Judgments 3628, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein, 4008, consideration 3, 4119, consideration 4, and 4278, consideration 2).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3628, 3736, 4008, 4119, 4278
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4566

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a selection procedure for which he was a member of the Selection Board.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; selection procedure; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4563

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to award him an invalidity allowance instead of an invalidity pension.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, a rule which concerns a long-term issue (such as pensions which last the remainder of the employees’ lifetimes) may be modified throughout the years. The changes in circumstances which may require the rule to be amended must be reasonable and the changes have to balance the interests of the employees and the Organisation. The interest of current and future employees who are not currently affected by the rule but shall be in the future is also to be taken into account by the Organisation. The question of the sustainability of pension schemes must be a primary concern to the Organisation and as such may naturally require adjustments to be made to the norm regulating pension schemes over time.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; pension;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4554

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision deriving from the Administrative Council’s decision CA/D 2/15 to require the recipients of the new retirement pension for health reasons to cease performing gainful activities or employment or to refrain from performing such activities or employment.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal [...] accepted that the complainants did have a cause of action in challenging the ban on gainful activities or employment, even though that ban would not have forced them to abandon activities or employment that they were actually performing.
  [...]
  Referring to its case law on determining whether a cause of action exists, the Tribunal recalled in that judgment that “there may be a cause of action even if there is no present injury: time may go by before the impugned decision causes actual injury. The necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury” (see Judgments 1712, consideration 10, 2632, consideration 10, and 3337, consideration 7). Thus, in that case, since the ban on the performance of gainful activities or employment by the former employees concerned changed their previous situation in a manner detrimental to their interests and had the effect of requiring them to refrain from undertaking such activities or employment in the future, the decision adversely affected them, even though the actual injury deriving from the implementation of the ban was, in their case, purely hypothetical.
  

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1712, 2632, 3337
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; outside activity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4551

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest modifications made with respect to the use of mass emails within the Office.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The complainants allege an infringement of their rights to freedom of association, communication, and speech, which are granted to individual employees. The Tribunal’s case law holds that each staff member of an international organisation has a right to freely associate and the organisation has a corresponding duty to respect that right. This is a necessary element of their employment (see Judgment 4194, consideration 7; Judgment 911, consideration 3). Each is entitled to commence proceedings intended to defend that right or challenge an alleged breach of it (see Judgment 4155, consideration 2). As a result, it is enough for the Tribunal that the complainants brought their complaints in their capacity as staff members [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 911, 4155, 4194
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; freedom of association;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainants challenge two general decisions, the first announcing future rules on mass emails, and the second setting out new rules on mass emails. The Tribunal’s case law holds that a member of staff cannot impugn in proceedings in the Tribunal a general decision unless and until an individual decision which affects the member of staff personally is made based on the general decision. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14: “In general, [an administrative decision of general application] is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However, there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights.” This is equally true regarding the right to associate freely (see, for example, Judgments 496, consideration 6, and 3414, consideration 4). As the Tribunal observed in that latter case, all officials of international organisations have a right to associate and an implied contractual term in the appointment of each that the relevant organisation will not infringe that right. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the complainant could invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to seek to argue that his rights had been directly and adversely affected by general decisions. In the present case, the complainants allege that the Communiqué of 31 May 2013 immediately and directly affected the right of staff members to freely associate, by stating that as from 3 June 2013 emails sent to more than fifty addressees would be allowed only if authorised, and, if not, they would be automatically blocked and not dispatched. As to Communiqué No. 26 of 13 May 2013, it was the first step of the process that was finalized with the issuance of the Communiqué of 31 May 2013; therefore, it was properly contested together with the Communiqué of 31 May 2013 in the internal appeal and in the present complaints.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 496, 3414, 3761
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4550

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 and implemented in particular by Circular No. 356.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant also has a cause of action to challenge decision CA/D 2/14 in his capacity as a member of the Appeals Committee appointed by the Staff Committee insofar as, irrespective of the more general impact of the reform in question on the functioning of the Appeals Committee, that decision affected the system under which he was a member of that body and ended prematurely his mandate as a full member of it.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; internal appeals body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4548

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant claims compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered because she was not re-hired by the ILO.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  It is firmly established in the case law that “although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official’s terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case” (see Judgment 2903, consideration 11; see also Judgments 4201, consideration 3, and 4219, consideration 17).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2903, 4201, 4219
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; former official;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4547

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the President of IFAD to find her internal complaint of harassment and abuse of authority unfounded.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal considers that a decision of an international organisation finding that a harassment complaint is unfounded and rejecting a claim for compensation for the material or moral injury allegedly suffered by the staff member who lodged that complaint is an administrative decision that may adversely affect her or him. [T]he Tribunal has on several occasions held that any staff member who lodges such a complaint is entitled to know whether the person named in the complaint has been found to have committed acts of harassment and, if so, to be informed how the organisation intends to compensate her or him for the material and/or moral injury suffered (see, in this respect, [...] Judgments 3965, consideration 9, and 4541, consideration 4). Consequently, contrary to the JAB’s view, the complainant was entitled to challenge in an internal appeal both the decision [...] informing her that the case had been closed because there had been no harassment and the decision [...] confirming that initial decision.
  

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965, 4541
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; harassment; inquiry;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal observes that it is irrelevant that IFAD no longer had any reason to take measures to protect the complainant in the present case since she had left the organisation. That is not what the complainant seeks. She does not claim protection, which would indeed be pointless, but compensation for the material and moral injury she submits she suffered as a result of the conduct in question.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; former official; harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4525

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of his request to be awarded monetary compensation for the material and moral injury he allegedly sustained as a consequence of the IAEA’s failure to investigate allegations of harassment made against him.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Ordinarily, a decision not to conduct an investigation into allegations of harassment and to close the case without further action would not be regarded as a decision adversely affecting the official subject of the allegations, who therefore would have no cause of action to challenge such a decision.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; harassment; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4520

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of a staff member.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, for example, that “[a]ny employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3) [, but that i]n order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own”. As the complainant, who did not apply for the subject vacant post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he does not have a cause of action.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4512

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the ICC Registrar to reject his grievance complaint against Mr H. and to close the case.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 1899, in consideration 3, “[d]isciplinary relations between an organisation and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member will not adversely affect other staff, so the latter will have no cause of action for challenging a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one.” Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Tribunal’s consistent case law has it that ordering that disciplinary action be taken against an alleged harasser is, in any event, outside its jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 4313, consideration 11, 4241, consideration 4, 3318, consideration 12, and 2811, consideration 15). The Tribunal finds that the complainant’s allegations and claims based on the ICC’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr H. are irreceivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4313
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4483

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the “social democracy” reform introduced by decision CA/D 2/14 insofar as it abolished the Local Advisory Committees.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant contends there is a fundamental or inherent right of staff to meaningful consultation, referring to Judgments 1488 and 1062. However, these cases concerned the operation of specific provisions in the Service Regulations and do not establish the fundamental right contended for, nor has it been otherwise recognised by the Tribunal. Insofar as the complainant relies on the alleged violation of this asserted right, his complaint is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1062, 1488
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; consultation; general decision; right;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4463

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant objects to the disclosure of his medical situation.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [I]t is a matter of settled case law that, as a general rule, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, in particular, Judgments 3168, consideration 9, and 4317, consideration 4). Such is the case here, and it follows that the complainant must be allowed to argue before the Tribunal that the effect of the implied decision rejecting his grievance was to allow the injury he submits he suffered to persist.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 4317
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that, following the exchange of pleadings, the sole genuine purpose remaining of the original complaint is, as the parties themselves acknowledge, to ascertain whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the moral injury he submits he suffered on account of the memorandum of 14 November 2017 being held in the WTO’s files between the date when the memorandum was issued and the date when the WTO removed it from all its files.
  The complaint therefore retains a purpose because the Tribunal alone can decide whether the complainant is entitled to moral damages, which is a live controversy within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, to that effect, Judgment 4060, consideration 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4060
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4439

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  World Trade Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, a former official, impugns the decision taken by the WTO’s Deputy Directors-General concerning the investigation carried out in respect of a doctor in the Organization’s Medical Service, for having breached medical confidentiality and her duty of confidentiality.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; summary procedure;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  Le Tribunal note que la décision attaquée par l’intéressé devant lui – à savoir, celle d’imposer une mesure administrative à la Dre J. – ne le concerne pas directement. Cette décision s’adresse à la Dre J., qui en est la seule destinataire. Même si le requérant n’est pas d’accord avec ladite mesure, qu’il considère être trop accommodante par rapport aux résultats de l’enquête menée par le Bureau du contrôle interne, il n’a pas d’intérêt à agir contre cette décision. Comme le Tribunal l’a affirmé dans le jugement 1899, au considérant 3, «[l]es relations disciplinaires entre une organisation et un fonctionnaire ne concernent directement que ceux-ci; elles n’ont pas d’effets sur la situation juridique d’autres fonctionnaires. [Ainsi,] [l]es décisions relatives à une enquête ou à une mesure disciplinaires concernant un fonctionnaire ne sauraient [...] faire grief à d’autres fonctionnaires [et,] à défaut de grief, ceux-ci n’ont pas qualité pour recourir contre une sanction disciplinaire ou le refus d’en prononcer une.» Par ailleurs, il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une demande tendant à ce que le Tribunal ordonne l’imposition d’une sanction disciplinaire à l’encontre d’un fonctionnaire échappe, en tout état de cause, à sa compétence (voir les jugements 4313, au considérant 11, 4291, au considérant 10, 4241, au considérant 4, 3318, au considérant 12, 2811, au considérant 15, 2636, au considérant 13, et 2190, au considérant 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1899, 2190, 2636, 2811, 3318, 4241, 4291, 4313
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; impugned decision; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4431

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges a decision of the Administrative Council introducing new rules for employees of the European Patent Office concerning the right to strike.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In concluding that the internal appeal was irreceivable, the Appeals Committee rejected any suggestion that CA/D 5/13 had an immediate and adverse effect on the complainant. However the gist of the complainant’s argument in relation to Article 65(1)(c) was that it had had such an effect and, at least quite clearly implicitly, on his (and his colleagues’) right to strike. The Tribunal, in its Judgment 3761, consideration 14, made clear that a general decision may, in certain circumstances, be impugned if it immediately and adversely affects individual rights. The complainant’s argument involved such a contention. The conclusion of the Appeals Committee that his appeal was manifestly irreceivable failed to consider this question and was thus legally flawed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; internal appeal; procedural flaw;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4430

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the new rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal case law to the effect that a general decision cannot be challenged by a staff member unless and until an individual decision is taken. But the Tribunal’s case law contains an exception or limitation. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 3761 at consideration 14:
  “In general, [an administrative decision of general application] is not subject to challenge until an individual decision adversely affecting the individual involved has been taken. However there are exceptions where the general decision does not require an implementing decision and immediately and adversely affects individual rights.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3761
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; impugned decision;
  

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  In the absence of any implementing decision, the question that then arises is whether, in relation to the complainants, there has been an immediate and adverse effect on individual rights. The Tribunal is satisfied there has been. Circular No. 347 did have an immediate and adverse effect on the complainants’ right to strike. It is immaterial that they did not go on strike in June 2013 or that circumstances had not arisen where one or a number of the provisions of the Circular operated on or applied to conduct of the complainants. The effect was immediate because, at the date of promulgation of the Circular, it legally constrained future exercise of the right to strike or imposed burdens to the same effect. The complaints are receivable.

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; receivability of the complaint; right to strike; strike;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4422

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may impugn a decision only if it directly affects her or him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him, but she or he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated her or his cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 3291, consideration 8, and 4119, consideration 4). Accordingly, the complainants are entitled to challenge the individual decisions resulting from the increased pension contributions reflected in their subject payslips, as well as the lawfulness of general decision CA/D 10/13.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4119
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; payslip;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4419

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the appointment of members of the General Advisory Committee in 2012 and 2013.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  cause of action; complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; member of an internal body;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In a judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 24 July 2020, Judgment 4322, there was a conclusive determination that staff members in the position of the complainants had no cause of action to challenge, relevantly, the appointment of Vice-Presidents to the GAC (see Judgment 4322, considerations 8 and 9). Indeed the three complainants in the present proceedings were complainants in the proceedings leading to Judgment 4322. The question of whether the complainants had a cause of action was raised by the Tribunal of its own motion notwithstanding it had not been raised by the parties before the Tribunal. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis of the Tribunal in Judgment 4322. Suffice it to note that there are no material factual or legal differences between the circumstances addressed in that judgment and those of the present case [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; member of an internal body; precedent;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4417

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests instructions she received concerning patent applications.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed;
  

  Considerations 7-8

  Extract:

  In consideration 11 of Judgment 3053, the Tribunal held, among other things, that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action. The Tribunal also held, in consideration 10 of Judgment 3053, that proposals and/or decisions relating to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not directly affect the relationship of staff members with the Organisation, although, as recognised in Judgment 2874, decisions or proposals as to the implementation of changes to the law and/or procedures may well do so.
  The Tribunal does not see any reason to depart from the conclusions stated in the foregoing consideration.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2874, 3053
  

  Keywords:

  administrative decision; cause of action;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4402

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

  Considerations 4-6

  Extract:

  Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.
  
  The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.
  
  The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | next >