|
|
 |
|
|
Notification (680,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Notification
Total judgments found: 20
Judgment 4809
137th Session, 2024
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a contractual redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his last contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of th[e] letter [in question] makes it plain that it was not intended to convey a decision taken by the Executive Director but by the Director-General himself, in a procedure commonly used in such cases at the ILO and, mutatis mutandis, in many other international organisations. The matter of whether the power to sign this letter had been granted is therefore irrelevant and the plea must be dismissed in accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law in this matter (see, for example, Judgments 4291, considerations 17 and 18, 3352, consideration 7, and 2836, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 3352, 4291
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegation of power; final decision; notification;
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 4680
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with forfeiture of an indemnity for loss of job.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The question of interpretation which arises […] is whether Article 23.2(g) obliges the Director-General to notify the staff member of the specific disciplinary measure she or he then intends to impose, or it is sufficient to repeat, as happened in this case, that a disciplinary measure of those listed will be imposed. The provision is ambiguous. One meaning is that the words “notify the staff member [...] that a disciplinary measure among those listed in Article 23.3 of these Regulations will be imposed” requires notification of what disciplinary measure will be imposed, with the words “among those listed in Article 23.3” identifying the four measures from which one can be chosen and nominated. The other meaning is that it is sufficient to repeat that an unidentified disciplinary measure of those listed in Article 23.3 will be imposed. In Judgment 4639, consideration 3, the Tribunal stated: […]
It would obviously favour the staff member to treat Article 23.2(g) as requiring disclosure of the specific disciplinary measure which will be imposed (subject, of course, to the procedures in Article 23 itself) in order to arm her or him with information relevant to the question of whether to request that a Disciplinary Board examine her or his case. It would usually be the case that the staff member would be far more inclined to seek such an examination if dismissal was in contemplation rather than, for example, a written censure. As was noted in one of the Tribunal’s earlier reported cases, Judgment 203, consideration 2, the imposition of the disciplinary sanction of discharge or summary dismissal could cause serious harm to the staff member and her or his family. This interpretation, namely that the specific disciplinary measure proposed must be notified pursuant to Article 23.2(g), would also give rise to a fairer and more balanced procedure. It would be fairer because it would give the concerned staff member an opportunity to argue before the Disciplinary Board that the specific disciplinary measure in contemplation was disproportionate, or otherwise inappropriate, as well as giving the Disciplinary Board an opportunity to review what is in contemplation in formulating the recommendation required by Annex VII(2)(c) of the Staff Regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4639
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; interpretation; notification;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[T]he [...] letter [...], which did contain a clear notification of that decision, expressly stated that the Legal Counsel was merely conveying the Director General’s decision. However, the Tribunal’s case law recognises that the decision of the executive head of an organisation may in fact be notified to the official concerned in a letter signed by another senior official, as is common practice (see, for example, Judgments 4291, consideration 17, 4139, consideration 6, 3352, consideration 7, and 2924, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2924, 3352, 4139, 4291
Keywords:
delegated authority; notification;
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 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law shows that an organisation that is intending to transfer a staff member is obliged to ensure that the implementation of that measure is preceded by proper notice enabling the staff member to make the necessary arrangements for the change in her or his duty station (see [...] Judgment 1556, consideration 12, Judgment 1496, considerations 11 and 13, and [...] Judgment 810, consideration 7). In the present case, the period of 11 days given to the complainant under the decision of 18 February 2013 to take up her new post at Headquarters clearly fell short of that requirement, particularly given that in practical terms the transfer in question involved moving from Kinshasa to Paris.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1496, 1556
Keywords:
duty station; notification; time limit; 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 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[The complainant] contends that the request for reconsideration he had initially lodged [...] did not receive a reply from the Secretary-General within the period of 45 days specified [...]. According to ITU’s explanations on this point, a decision on the request for reconsideration had in fact been taken but owing to an unfortunate administrative error had been sent to the complainant’s old work email address, meaning that the complainant, who no longer had access to that address, could not be aware of it. That error is plainly regrettable, but the Tribunal notes that, under Staff Rule 11.1.3(7)(b)(ii), a staff member who submits a request for reconsideration may, if she or he does not receive a reply to that request within the prescribed time limit, submit an appeal to the Appeal Board, as the complainant did in this case. Moreover, it is not disputed that ITU forwarded the decision rejecting the complainant’s request for reconsideration and the appended documents to him during the appeal procedure before the Appeal Board and that he had the opportunity to comment on those documents in that procedure. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the failure to provide proper notification of the decision in question did not, in the present case, in fact breach the complainant’s right of appeal nor in consequence render the final decision taken at the end of the internal appeal procedure unlawful.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; notification; time limit;
Judgment 4347
131st Session, 2021
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision of the Director of PAHO to impose on him the disciplinary measure of reassignment with reduction in grade.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The complainant argues that he was disadvantaged by two distinct and irregular parallel processes, as he was not informed of the investigation into the harassment complaint against him while he was involved in Mr M.’s performance evaluation process. There is no reason for which the complainant should have been notified that he was the subject of a harassment complaint while he was involved in the performance evaluation process for the staff member who raised the complaint. The Ethics Office acted within its competence in deciding to notify him only after the investigation into his alleged misconduct had begun in order to preserve the evidence and to eliminate the potential for witness tampering or intimidation. His rights were not infringed by the delay in his notification (see, for example, Judgment 3295, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3295
Keywords:
investigation; notification;
Judgment 4291
130th Session, 2020
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority.
Consideration 17
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 4139, consideration 6, “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognizes that the decision of the executive head of an organization may be communicated to the official concerned, as is common practice, by means of a letter signed by the head of human resources management (see, for example, Judgments 2836, consideration 7, 2837, consideration 4, 2871, consideration 7, 2924, consideration 5, or 3352, consideration 7). However, it must be clear from the terms of that letter, or, at least, from consideration of the documents in the file, that the decision in question was indeed taken by the executive head himself”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2836, 2837, 2871, 2924, 3352, 4139
Keywords:
decision-maker; delegated authority; final decision; notification;
Judgment 4161
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a settlement agreement.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the Tribunal’s case law in principle accepts notification by email (see Judgment 2966, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). There is no reason to distinguish between emails sent to the staff member’s work address when he is employed and those sent to his private address once he has left the organisation. The Tribunal further considers that since the complainant had chosen his counsel’s office as his address for notification purposes, which the parties do not dispute, any notification made to that address is valid.
The decision’s notification to both the complainant and his counsel by both email and registered letter, and also the wording of the email, confused the complainant and led to an exchange of emails with the Deputy Director General concerning the start of the time limit for filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It is true that the Deputy Director General alerted the complainant to the terms of Article VII of the Statute of the Tribunal and advised him to consult his counsel about how to calculate the time limit. However, he did not inform him clearly of the date to take into account. The fact that the email stated that it contained only an advance copy of the decision and that the paper copy would be sent by registered post, and the failure of the email to indicate that the time limit would start to run on the date on which the email was received, could have misled the complainant and caused him to believe that the time limit only started to run on the date when the paper copy of the decision was received (for a similar case, see Judgment 3704, considerations 7 and 8). In this case, it is hence the later date that must be considered as the date on which the time limit for filing a complaint to the Tribunal started to run.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3704
Keywords:
email; late filing; notification; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3871
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges WHO’s refusal to reinstate him after the decision to dismiss him was set aside.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, it is incumbent upon the sender of a document to prove, in the event of any dispute in this regard, that it was actually received by its addressee (see, for example, Judgment 2074, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2074
Keywords:
notification;
Judgment 3869
124th Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Whatever may have been the state of the Tribunal’s case law in 1983, it is now settled that a decision may validly be notified by email and the time runs from the date on which the complainant learns of the decision (see, for example, Judgment 2966, consideration 8). It is true that circumstances can arise where the email communication together with a scanned copy of a hardcopy document accompanying the email misleads a complainant about when a time limit has commenced to run. An example of this is found in a recent judgment: Judgment 3704, consideration 8.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3704
Keywords:
email; notification;
Judgment 3849
124th Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract.
Consideration 5
Extract:
There is no substance in the complainant’s argument that the e-mail [...] could not have been notification because it took the form of an e-mail. No particular formality is required and notification by e-mail can constitute effective notification (see, for example, Judgment 2966, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966
Keywords:
email; notification;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal emphasises that it is desirable that an organisation make it absolutely clear in a communication that it constitutes notice that the contract will not be renewed and language to this effect should be used. Also, it is desirable for the organisation to say in such a communication that it manifests a final decision against which the official can appeal in a manner prescribed in the organisation’s rules and regulations.
Keywords:
administrative decision; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It might be thought that the clear intimation from the Director of HRM that the contract would not be renewed should be viewed as conditional and thus should not be considered notification of a decision not to renew the contract. That is to say, it should not be taken to be notification of a final decision because there remained to be determined, before such a decision could be made, whether another position might be found for the complainant. However, the fact that a communication such as this might advert to further steps being taken to reassign or re-deploy an official, does not, of itself, result in the communication not being notification of a decision not to renew (see Judgment 634, consideration 2). Equally, however, in the event of non-renewal there must be a definite decision not to renew coupled with notification to the official (see Judgment 2104, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 634, 2104
Keywords:
administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; notification;
Judgment 3847
124th Session, 2017
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The question whether the first complaint is receivable turns on whether, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complainant filed it within the stipulated ninety days following the decision not to extend her contract. The principle of good faith dealings which applies to the relations between international civil servants and the organisations that employ them prevents a staff member from thwarting timely notification by her or his conduct. Accordingly, in considerations 11 and 12 of Judgment 2152 the Tribunal stated as follows [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2152
Keywords:
good faith; notification; time bar;
Judgment 3838
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, it is for the organisation issuing and communicating the impugned decision to establish the date of receipt by the addressee. It may be that it is impossible to prove this, for example because the mode of delivery does not allow the date of receipt to be ascertained. If such is the case, the Tribunal will ordinarily accept the addressee’s account concerning the date of receipt unless what she or he says is patently implausible. Thus, a complaint will be deemed to have been filed within the time limit if it was submitted within 90 days of the date of receipt indicated by the complainant (see Judgments 447, under 2, 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 930, under 8, 2473, under 4, and 2494, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 447, 456, 723, 930
Keywords:
notification;
Judgment 3738
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]ccording to firm precedent, it is for the sender of a document to prove its date of receipt by the recipient in the event of a dispute on this matter (see, for example, Judgments 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 2473, under 4, 2494, under 4, 3034, under 13, and 3253, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 723, 2473, 2494, 3034, 3253
Keywords:
burden of proof; notification;
Judgment 3737
123rd Session, 2017
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was subjected to harassment.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]ccording to firm precedent, it is for the sender of a document to establish its date of receipt by the recipient in the event of a dispute on this matter (see, for example, Judgments 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 2473, under 4, 2494, under 4, 3034, under 13, or 3253, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 723, 2473, 2494, 3034, 3253
Keywords:
burden of proof; notification;
Judgment 3704
122nd Session, 2016
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the former Director of the ILO Office in Berlin to apply to her the sanction of warning.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The message that the original decision would be sent by post could possibly and reasonably have confused and misled the complainant causing uncertainty as to when she was being notified of the decision and whether the time limit for filing her grievance ran from [the date] when she received the e-mail. It is accordingly determined that this is an exception which permitted the complainant to file her grievance with the JAAB when she did. The complaint is therefore receivable. The Tribunal considers that a statement in HRD’s decision, or in the e-mail by which it was sent, making it clear that the time limit for filing a grievance with the JAAB would have run from the date on which the complainant received the scanned copy, would have put the matter beyond doubt.
Keywords:
notification; time limit;
Judgment 3675
122nd Session, 2016
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests IOM’s decision to abolish his post and not to renew his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was notified of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred by an e-mail dated 19 September 2013, which is not only shown to have been opened that same day but was also expressly acknowledged as read by the complainant in his e-mail of 23 September 2013. Therefore, in line with the Tribunal’s case law, the date of notification of the decision to reject his Action Prior to the Lodging of an Appeal as time-barred was 19 September 2013, when he received the decision by e-mail, and not 4 October 2013, when he claims to have received the hard copy of the 19 September decision (see Judgments 2966, consideration 8, and 3351, considerations 13 to 16).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2966, 3351
Keywords:
notification; time bar;
Judgment 3660
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is plain that the manner in which the decision was conveyed to the complainant, who had been in the service of the Organisation for nearly 20 years at the material time and whose excellent performance had been recognised by it, was likely to hurt, shock and upset him.
Keywords:
humiliation; notification;
Judgment 3034
111th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]n accordance with the principles governing the burden of proof when determining the receivability of complaints, it is up to the organisation which intends to rely on late submission to establish the date on which the impugned decisions were notified (see Judgments 723, under 4, or 2494, under 4). Since the Agency has failed to produce any acknowledgement of receipt or other document attesting to the date on which the decisions in question were notified, it has not furnished proof of the alleged late submission.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 723, 2494
Keywords:
burden of proof; final decision; late filing; notification; time bar;
|
|
|
|
|
