Composition of the internal appeals body (813, 82, 973,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Composition of the internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 58
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant takes issue with the composition of the Selection Board. [...] He relies on Judgment 1549, under 12, where the Tribunal stated that «[...] after the process of selection has begun the terms of competition may not be changed [...]»."
"The Tribunal rejects this argument. First, the complainant's reliance on Judgment 1549 is misplaced. While the cited passage does refer to a selection decision, the composition of the Selection Board is not one of the «terms of competition»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; due process; selection board;
Judgment 2767
106th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"The Director-General did not rely on any special feature of the case in order to justify his refusal to follow the recommendation of the Board [to inform the complainant of the names of the IRG members who had examined her case]. In this respect, the argument that the complainant did in fact find out who was on the IRG panel at the hearing on 7 July 2006 is inoperative [...]. It must be concluded that the Director-General refused without good reason to rectify a procedural flaw by not informing the complainant of the identity of the IRG members."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; organisation's duties; recommendation; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2671
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In Judgment 1317, under 31, the Tribunal stated: 'An internal appeal procedure that works properly is an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony in an international organisation [...].'
The notion of 'working well' necessarily encompasses the requirement that the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A reasonable person, knowing that a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved. So much was decided in Judgment 179 in which it was said that 'failing any explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their views on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality'. [...] It follows that those persons who had been members of the first Appeals Committee were disqualified from membership of the second Committee."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeal; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 2520
100th Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"It is well settled that candidates are entitled to equal treatment in a competition for an advertised post (see Judgment 1990). It is an important aspect of the principle of equality that all candidates be considered objectively. Necessarily, a person's candidacy should not be evaluated by a person whose impartiality is open to question on reasonable grounds. The rule applies not only to those making or participating in the actual decision but also to those who have an advisory role, for they may exert influence on the ultimate decision (see Judgment 179). [...] To say that a person should not participate in the selection of candidates for an advertised position if his or her impartiality is reasonably open to question is not to say that a person should not have had a professional relationship with, or even supervisory responsibility for, one or more of the candidates. However, if the relationship goes beyond the proper bounds of a professional or supervisory relationship, there may well be reasonable grounds to question the impartiality of the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 1990
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; candidate; case law; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; equal treatment; impartiality; post; selection board; supervisor;
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2424
98th Session, 2005
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he Joint Committee [...] refused the complainant's request to reschedule her hearing, yet her request for postponement was justified by the fact that she was declared unfit for work and that the date of the hearing was so close (she was summoned on 4 July in the afternoon for a hearing to be held on 7 July) that it did not leave her time either to prepare her defence properly or to be assisted by a counsel of her own choosing. The Tribunal rejects the reasons given for the refusal to reschedule the hearing, which were that, since the complainant had already been heard by the Joint Committee during the procedure relating to the conversion of appointments, and since the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes considered that the case file provided them with sufficient information, a hearing before the latter Committee was unnecessary. But considering that it was the Joint Committee for Disputes itself which took the initiative of summoning the complainant to a hearing, it could hardly have deemed that hearing to be «unnecessary»."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; contract; counsel; grounds; incapacity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; oral proceedings; sick leave; time limit;
Judgment 2146
93rd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Invalidity Committee was constituted of two doctors respectively appointed by the organization and the complainant and of a third member chosen by mutual agreement between the first two doctors. The doctor appointed by the complainant resigned. He appointed another but challenges the fact that the third member was not rechosen. "It is clear [...] that if a member is replaced, the appointment should be by the same person or persons who originally appointed the member who has left. The complainant is wrong to liken the Invalidity Committee to an arbitral body that must always have representation from each side and must always be presided by someone chosen by the parties' representatives. The Invalidity Committee is a statutory body and once regularly constituted, it has the powers vested in it by the rules. The appointments to it do not become invalid simply by reason of the departure of a member."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; pension entitlements; resignation;
Judgment 1977
89th Session, 2000
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."
Keywords:
abuse of power; advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; misconduct; misuse of authority; purpose; report;
Judgment 1896
88th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainants contest the Administrative Council's decision refusing to allow a staff representative on the Appeals Committee which can hear appeals against decisions of the Council. "Decisions of a general thrust relating to the attributions of power can be challenged forthwith, without having to wait until the body, whose composition is contested, delivers an unfavourable individual decision to the appellant".
Keywords:
cause of action; composition of the internal appeals body; decision; general decision; individual decision; internal appeals body; staff representative;
Judgment 1839
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. The methodology [of the International Civil Service Commission] provides in paragraph 6 that, though it is preferable to have representatives of both management and staff take part, the technical requirements will still be met even if one side prefers not to; so that actual participation by both sides is not a requirement. Nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1838
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"The complainants plead that the staff representatives having withdrawn, the [Local Salary Survey Committee] was no longer competent to act and that the organization was in breach of its duty of consulting the staff either through such a body or else, in accordance with Staff Regulation 8.1, directly. [This] plea [...] must fail. Not only did the Committee and its working party both comprising staff representatives function for many months before the survey began, but the Committee did not, as the complainants make out, cease to exist after the staff representatives had withdrawn. The [organization] repeatedly invited them to take part, and their refusal to do so did not have the effect of disqualifying the Committee or invalidating its recommendations. nor was there any breach of Regulation 8.1. [The Tribunal draws an analogy between this issue and the issue considered in Judgment 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition of the internal appeals body; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1763
85th Session, 1998
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant is accused of having cheated the Organisation by falsifying airline tickets intended for official travel. "[T]he Appeals Board asked for and received a legal opinion from the Director of the Legal Division during the appeal. This [...] was a violation of due process because that Director had been a member of the Disciplinary Board, whose recommendation was under appeal. The Agency admits that the Director signed a legal opinion that had been prepared at the request of the Appeals Board. That opinion should not have been given by the Director and should have been rejected by the Appeals Board; the Director simply should not have been involved, in substance or in form, with the Appeals Board's recommendation. A member of the body appealed from may not give legal advice to the body which hears the appeal."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; bias; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; equity; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedural flaw; report;
Judgment 1565
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that since it was unlawful to have no staff representative on the Selection Committee its recommendation too was unlawful. [...] But since the provisions on the membership of the Committee are not binding, and if no staff representative chooses to attend, that cannot have the effect of invalidating its recommendations."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; staff representative;
Judgment 1477
80th Session, 1996
International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The rule that a selection committee may not delegate its authority unless provided for under the Staff Regulations "is even more important where, as in this case, the membership of the body that purports to delegate affords the staff special safeguards. Since the panel's members came mostly from the management side it was no offshoot of the Selection Committee".
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; delegated authority; safeguard; selection board; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1441
79th Session, 1995
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant relies on a rule which says that members of the Disciplinary Committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] should come from the staff of the Regional Office and have been locally recruited. The Tribunal considers that "the rule [in question] is not binding" and states that "in any event the complainant has failed to show how the membership of the committee [composed in this instance of staff members from headquarters and constituted there] might have proved prejudicial to the proper and independent consideration of his case."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF RULE 110.2(D)
Keywords:
advisory body; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; disciplinary procedure; duty station; injury; lack of injury; safeguard;
Judgment 1404
78th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant appealed to the Headquarters Appeals Board before the Regional Board had issued its report. "The complainant's own behaviour affected the regional proceedings and made for delay in the Regional Board's report and recommendation to the Regional Director. Not to be ignored either is the effect of the change in membership, which fell within the time allotted for hearing the case. On the evidence the complainant has failed to show that the Board did not intend to report within a reasonable time."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; composition of the internal appeals body; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; reasonable time; time limit;
Judgment 1392
78th Session, 1995
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
Because of the functions the Regulations confer on an appeals body, it is bound "to take a stand on many an issue that affects or may later affect its ownmembers as [employees of the organisation]. That is true of any court of administrative law, which may have to make rulings that affect its own members as individual citizens. The universal experience of the judiciary is that the duty of independence may be fully respected even in such circumstances."
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; independence; internal appeals body; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1190
73rd Session, 1992
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Under WHO Staff Rule 1230.4 an official who has appealed to the Appeals Board is entitled to challenge two of its members. One of the complainants exercised that right but had his challenge rejected. There was therefore a serious flaw in the internal appeal procedure. The material issue is whether the Director-General was entitled to treat the Board's report as being in line with the material rules. The report itself discloses that the rights of one of the complainants had been ignored. The Tribunal holds that "the Director-General has a duty to enforce the rules. He knew of the breach and should have rejected the report insofar as it concerned [the complainant] who objected to it as not being in accordance with those rules: he was not entitled to proceed as if no breach had occurred."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VIII OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 1230.4
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; due process; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; procedure before the tribunal; recommendation; recusal; report; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
