|
|
 |
|
|
Order (138, 139, 672, 825, 826,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Order
Total judgments found: 31
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4753
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.
Consideration 14
Extract:
The complainant has not established that the investigation and findings of the OIOS in relation to the group complaint against him were legally flawed. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the decision to place the letter of 17 December 2020 on the complainant’s personnel file was infected by legal error. Consequentially, there is no basis for ordering that the letter be removed from the complainant’s personnel file.
Keywords:
administrative decision; flaw; investigation; mistake of law; order; personal file;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.
Keywords:
finality of judgment; identical facts; joinder; judgment of the tribunal; order;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Ordinarily, a document addressing a staff member’s performance or conduct can, appropriately, be placed on the staff member’s personnel file. However, if the document is legally flawed, an order could be made requiring its removal (see, for example, Judgment 3997, consideration 8). In the present case, the letter of 17 December 2020 might arguably be legally flawed, if there was a flawed process of investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3997
Keywords:
administrative decision; conduct; flaw; investigation; order; personal file;
Judgment 4482
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.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Having regard to the fact that those amendments violated the complainant’s right to freedom of association as already discussed and created this tension, it is appropriate to quash those elements of decision CA/D 2/14 which had this effect, namely the introduction by Article 6 of decision CA/D 2/14 of a new clause (5) of Article 35 of the Service Regulations in substitution for clause 6 of Article 35 of the pre-existing Service Regulations. The central order the Tribunal will make is intended to operate prospectively. That is to say, is intended to operate in relation to future elections but not affect the tenure of staff representatives already elected under the election regime put in place by decision CA/D 2/14. Retrospective operation would create unacceptable legal uncertainty about the actions, including decisions, of staff representatives and committees in the lengthy period since decision CA/D 2/14 was adopted. It is also intended to apply the pre-existing provisions, mutatis mutandis, to the election of staff representatives for the Central Staff Committee and Local Staff Committees as established by decision CA/D 2/14. In this respect, the order revives the pre-existing rules (see Judgment 365, consideration 4). Necessarily the applicable Implementing Rules, Circular No. 355, will have no legal effect.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365
Keywords:
compensation; freedom of association; order;
Judgment 4415
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he evidence of and reference to the disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary measure [will] be removed from [the complainant's] personnel file.
Keywords:
order; personal file;
Judgment 4193
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Inasmuch as it is within the authority of the President to determine the grade of a post, the Tribunal does not have the competence to make an order which the complainant seeks that it upgrade her post [...] retroactively [...].
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 4040
126th Session, 2018
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organisation to promote a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 3370, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3370
Keywords:
order; promotion;
Judgment 4029
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him the two-step within-grade increase which, he argues, WHO ought to have granted him at the time of his appointment under a fixed-term contract.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant’s request for an order requiring WHO to provide him with a Certificate of Service is beyond the Tribunal’s competence. However, it is noted that WHO has agreed to provide the complainant with a Certificate of Service upon request.
Keywords:
certificate of service; competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 4024
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organization to reclassify a post (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834
Keywords:
order; post classification;
Judgment 3922
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to offer her a three-month renewal of her contract and to reject the claims she made with respect to her performance evaluation for 2012, the reclassification of her post, the length of her last contract and her allegations of harassment, retaliation and intimidation.
Consideration 26
Extract:
The Tribunal has no power to order the Global Fund, as the complainant requests, to renew her employment on a “long-term contract of continuing duration” to a post which fits her qualifications, background and experience. Neither does the Tribunal have power to award her material damages equivalent to the amount which she would have received in a higher position (see Judgment 3835, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3835
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 3834
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[The Tribunal] can grant damages if it is not disputed that the complainant performed work beyond her current grade (see, for example, Judgment 3284, considerations 14 and 17). The Tribunal therefore determines that the complainant is entitled to material damages for the tasks that she performed above her G.5 grade, and that she is entitled to moral damages for the prejudice that she suffered by IOM’s breach.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
grade; material damages; moral injury; order; post classification; reclassification; retroactivity;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
IOM has not disputed that the five subject tasks that were assigned to the complainant occasioned her to perform duties and responsibilities which were above her G.5 grade. An international organization is required to respect the grading structure and grades of its staff members. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 808, consideration 22:
“In sum the Director-General may assign the staff as the Organisation’s interests require provided he respects their grades and the grading structure. Transfer does not depend on their consent and they must be willing to put their hand to any work that suits their grade, their qualifications and the terms of their appointment.”
The complainant seems to invite the Tribunal to reclassify her post in relation to her performance of the subject tasks, but the Tribunal has no authority to do so (see Judgment 3284, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Consideration 30
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the retroactive reclassification of the post […] and to order the IAEA to pay material damages equivalent to the salary differential […] taking into account step increases […]. First, the reclassification of a post is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal as the authority to do so rests exclusively with the Director General and as delegated. Second, granting the request for the material damages would amount to the Tribunal substituting its own assessment for that of the competent authority contrary to well settled case law (for example, see Judgments 2284, under 9, and 3284, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2284, 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3428
119th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully challenge decisions that were not followed by individual implementing decisions.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he complainants requested subsidiarily that the Tribunal should order the EPO “correctly to interpret the capping in Art[icle] 10 [of the New Pension Scheme Regulations]” [...]. The Tribunal may not, however, issue such injunctions to an international organisation. Hence these claims are [...] irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 1456, under 31, 2244, under 12, or 2793, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1456, 2244, 2793
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; order;
Judgment 3300
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision not to consider the complainant's disability as resulting from an occupational disease.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Articles 89(3), 89(4) and 90(1) of the Service Regulations
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disability benefit; invalidity; medical board; medical opinion; order; pension; procedural flaw; service-incurred; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3145
113th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t is necessary, prior to judgment, to order, at the Organization’s expense, a medical examination by a specialist appointed by the President of the Tribunal [...].
A medical expert shall be appointed by order of the President of the Tribunal to determine whether the complainant’s symptoms resulted from ergonomically unsound working conditions, or whether they had a different origin.
The expert shall examine the complainant, take into consideration all the evidence in the file submitted to the Tribunal and may ask the parties for any pertinent information, while respecting the adversarial principle. [...]
Keywords:
appointment of a medical specialist by the tribunal; order;
Judgment 3141
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 55
Extract:
[P]rovided that the complainant regularises his stay in Switzerland beforehand by one of the procedures referred to above, there are grounds for ordering the Organization to request that he be issued a legitimation card according to the normal procedure. Contrary to WHO’s submissions, it does lie within the Tribunal’s powers to demand that it take such action, since under Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal, when the latter finds that an international organisation has not fulfilled one of its obligations, it may order any requisite measure to ensure the performance of that obligation (see Judgment 2720, under 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2720
Keywords:
order;
Judgment 3038
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax.
"[T]here is no need to entertain the claim that the WTO should be ordered to 'employ its authority and power' to persuade the competent Swiss authorities to abandon the practice giving rise to this dispute, since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue such an order."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; domestic law; marital status; order; ratione materiae; tax;
Judgment 2880
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Application for execution of Judgment 2706 - In Judgment 2706 the Tribunal ordered the Organization inter alia to review the classification of the complainant's post and, if appropriate, to promote her. As a result of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years, the complainant was not promoted. The Tribunal granted the application for execution and ordered that the application for promotion be properly considered.
"The Tribunal [...] wishes to clarify [...] the meaning of the phrase "le cas échéant" in the authoritative French text of its orders in Judgment 2706. Having regard to the context in which it is used and the instructions given by the Tribunal in Judgment 2706, under 15, it is clear that the order means that "if the required conditions are met" or "in such a case" the complainant is to be promoted. That is, the Director General is to base his decision on relevant materials, namely the proposals of the Classification Committee and the Promotion Advisory Board."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706
Keywords:
application for execution; order; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2819
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the transfer decision did not respect the complainant's dignity, the Tribunal will order that the complainant be reassigned, within 28 days, to a post that satisfies the core requirement of a grade A6 post, namely, the running of a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields, and that the decision of 22 December 2005 be quashed with effect from the date of his reassignment to the new post."
Keywords:
compensatory measure; grade; order; post; respect for dignity; terms of appointment; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2751
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720
Keywords:
apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
