Duty to inform (204,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to inform
Total judgments found: 158
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]ccording to well-established case law of the Tribunal, the general principle of good faith and the duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that might imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 4072, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal considers that this obligation to act in good faith and this duty of care do not – despite what the complainant submits to the contrary, without identifying anything in the Tribunal’s case law to substantiate his argument – extend to a requirement for the organisation to take the initiative to calculate the loss or gain in salary which might result from a promotion from a grade G post to a grade P post for any staff member interested in applying for such a promotion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4072
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; salary;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The fact that staff members were informed only 15 days before the entry into force of the reform had no material consequences, considering that no action was required of them prior to its implementation.
Keywords:
duty to inform; notification;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The applicable staff rules did not provide for cross-examination of the accused person and/or of the witnesses, nor do they require verbatim records of the interviews, which is not contrary to the case law (see Judgments 4579, consideration 3, and 2771, consideration 18). Therefore, the allegations that there were no verbatim records of the interviews and that the complainant was not allowed to cross-examine the accused persons and the witnesses fail. The case law requires that the person who lodged a harassment complaint be informed of the content of the interviews and be allowed to comment on them (see Judgments 4111, consideration 4, 4110, consideration 4, 4109, consideration 4, 4108, consideration 4, and 3875, consideration 3).
[…]
[T]he complainant was provided with the investigation report, together with the minutes of the testimonies attached to it. Even though she received the investigation report only after she had lodged her internal appeal, she was given ten further working days […] to supplement her appeal. She was asked to confirm […] whether she wished to avail herself of this option, and she did not. Therefore, she was allowed to further comment on the investigation report, and she chose not to. Considering that she was able to rely on the investigation report during the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that her right to due process was not breached (see Judgment 4406, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3875, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4406, 4579
Keywords:
duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example,Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451
Keywords:
duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 22
Extract:
[I]n their rejoinder the complainants submit that the BIPM breached its duty to act in good faith towards them as it did not inform them at the time of their recruitment or during their employment that their contributions to the pension scheme were liable to increase significantly over time. However, the complainants could not be unaware of the risk that contributions would increase in line with financial necessity, which characterises all social insurance schemes to a greater or lesser extent.
Keywords:
duty to inform; good faith;
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 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal [...] notes that, although the file shows that [...] the EPO sent the complainant tables showing the method used to calculate his pension, it cannot be considered, as the Organisation submits, that the complainant’s request for information has thereby become moot, particularly since the tables were not accompanied by any explanations in words and, moreover, they were expressly presented as being only provisional. If the complainant were to continue to wish for additional information concerning the method used to calculate his pension, the Organisation should, under its duty to provide information and its duty of care, endeavour to meet his expectations, provided, at least, that they are formulated with sufficient clarity (see, on this point, Judgment 3963, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3963
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty of care; duty to inform; pension;
Judgment 4400
131st Session, 2021
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.
Consideration 31
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that an international organisation is entitled to ask its officials to inform it of any criminal convictions against them and that the duties of good faith and integrity oblige them to reply truthfully to such requests.
Keywords:
criminal sanction; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; staff member's duties;
Judgment 4254
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he rules applied must be communicated to those concerned before the initial decision is taken.
Keywords:
duty to inform;
Judgment 4251
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which she participated and the appointment made at the end of that procedure.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the Organization’s long-established practice of communicating substantive information on the selection process only at its formal end, is correct, as until that time, there cannot be any certainty as to the final outcome.
Keywords:
duty to inform; practice; selection procedure;
Judgment 4215
129th Session, 2020
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]lthough the complainant must have known that the Secretary General was not satisfied with his performance, he was not given the necessary time to remedy this situation. To underline this point, it suffices to recall that the decision to end the complainant’s appointment was taken on 25 April 2013, that he was notified of it – according to his uncontested account – on 30 April and that it took effect on 1 May, whereas the complainant had taken up his duties just a few weeks previously on 1 March 2013, and his probation period was due to end on 30 June. The complainant thus had very little time to prove his worth and, above all, was given no opportunity to take appropriate action in response to the criticisms directed at him. This is made still clearer by the emails submitted by the Organisation showing that the Secretary General’s criticisms of the complainant were, for the most part, not made until the fortnight immediately preceding the decision of 25 April. The fact is that when the complainant received the decision, he was presented with a fait accompli, which blatantly contradicts the requirement laid down in the case law that in such a situation a staff member must be granted sufficient time to enable him to improve his performance.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;
Judgment 4194
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to consult them concerning the use of external contractors.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
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 incident of their employment (see, for example, Judgment 911, consideration 3). On the assumption that, as an incident of freedom of association, an organisation has a duty to meet or satisfy a staff representative’s legitimate request for information as an element of a broader obligation to consult (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 15), and fails to do so, then a staff representative would, in that individual capacity and on this assumption, have a cause of action to enforce that duty.
There is no issue that, at the time these complaints were filed, each of the complainants had ceased being a member of the Munich Staff Committee even if one or a number may have held another office as a staff representative. Thus, when the proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal, the foundation of their cause of action had been removed. Their complaints are irreceivable.
This is not a barren technical conclusion. If their complaints were receivable, the merits of the case and the grant of relief would depend on the complainants demonstrating an ongoing right to be provided with the information and a right, if it existed, to continue to require the EPO to do what had been earlier requested. An immediate and probably insuperable problem would arise concerning relief if the complainants were able to establish, on the merits, they had been and were entitled to some or all of the information they had sought or had a right to request that certain things be done. But as they are no longer members of the Munich Staff Committee, they are not now entitled to any information of the type sought in the letter of 17 September 2009 nor to assert a right that the EPO do certain things. However this conclusion is not a barrier, more generally, to the enforcement of a right a member of a staff committee may have to be provided with information or a right to require the organisation to act in circumstances where the membership of the committee fluctuates over time. That is because when a staff representative has asserted a right arising from that status, the assertion or vindication of that right in proceedings before the Tribunal can be pursued by a newly elected staff representative as a “successor in title” (see Judgment 3465, consideration 3).
That would ordinarily involve the relevant committee approving the new staff representative assuming the role of the former staff representative. If approval was given then all steps taken by the former staff representative could be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. In this way, steps taken by the former staff representative to pursue the grievance by way of internal appeal can be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. The prosecution of a complaint in the Tribunal by the new staff representative would not be defeated by an argument that the new staff representative had not exhausted internal means of redress. She or he would have done so vicariously because of the actions of the former staff representative.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 911, 2919, 3465
Keywords:
cause of action; duty to inform; freedom of association; internal remedies exhausted; ratione personae; staff representative;
Judgment 4171
128th Session, 2019
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Even though the charge of harassment cannot stand, an international organisation fails in its duty to treat staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury if the organisation is aware of an unhealthy working atmosphere in the service where a staff member works but allows it to remain without taking adequate measures to remedy the situation (see, to this effect, Judgment 2067, considerations 16 and 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; harassment; organisation's duties; patere legem; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4111
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4110
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4109
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4108
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 4088
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The JAB’s conclusions concerning the effect of the supervisors’ failure to communicate properly with the complainant during the process rest on good grounds, particularly given the JAB’s earlier statement that the complainant’s supervisors had admitted that that failure “had certainly exhibited a lack of compassion and they apologised for that”. Nonetheless, the JAB’s conclusions have no bearing on the legality of the impugned decision, notwithstanding they support an argument that the IAEA breached its duty of care to the complainant. But that is not the subject-matter of this complaint.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform;
Judgment 4080
127th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the disclosure of the internal audit report, [...] the Tribunal notes that although the report was eventually forwarded to the complainant on 18 November 2015, following the Director General’s decision of 3 November 2015 to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, the Organisation should have forwarded it to the complainant, under its duty of care towards staff members, at the time when the Belgian Labour Prosecutor’s Office was contemplating taking criminal action against him. Indeed, from an extract of the draft internal audit report included in the dossier, it is clear that in all likelihood the report contained information which could have helped the complainant to defend his case in the event of such action.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; duty of care; duty to inform; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4072
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations 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 Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards his past performance, the complainant was unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of his evaluation referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor was he informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of his post, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with him. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that he did not meet the requirements in question, the complainant was not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that his consent was vitiated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4071
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.
Consideration 10
Extract:
As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations 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 Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards their past performance, the complainants were unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of their evaluations referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor were the complainants informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of their posts, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with them. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that they did not meet the requirements in question, the complainants were not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that their consent was vitiated.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
