ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Negligence (199,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Negligence
Total judgments found: 35

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4239


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for health reasons and claims that the compensation she received for her service-incurred injury is grossly inadequate.

    Considerations 14-15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law is settled on what constitutes a cause of action based on negligence. The cause of action contains several elements (see, for example, Judgment 3733, consideration 12). The first is that the organisation has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. The second is that liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. As noted in Judgment 3215, consideration 12, the word “injury” in this context is not used in any technical, legal or medical sense. Equally apt and often used is the word “damage”, which may be physical (including psychological), financial or, as is often the case, both. In the context of employment with an international organisation, physical damage or injury is more likely to be foundational to the claim though the damage could well be, as is alleged in this case, consequential financial damage occasioned by loss of earning capacity flowing from the physical injury.
    However, another essential element of the cause of action is that the negligent act or omission caused the damage. That is to say, there must be a causal link between the conduct complained of and the damage suffered. Moreover, the person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based (see, for example, Judgment 3215, consideration 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3215, 3733

    Keywords:

    cause of action; negligence;



  • Judgment 4222


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.

    Considerations 15-17

    Extract:

    According to article 4 of the Staff Compensation Plan:
    “The compensation payable under these Rules shall be the sole compensation to which any person shall be entitled as against the Organization in respect of any claim falling within the provisions thereof”.
    Contrary to the defendant organization’s submissions, these provisions do not preclude a staff member from claiming compensation for the consequences of negligence on the part of the Organization. Such a claim cannot be regarded as being based on the provisions of this plan (see, for similar cases, Judgments 3689, consideration 5, and 3946, consideration 17).
    [...]
    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an organization may incur liability in negligence where it fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury (see Judgments 2804, consideration 25, 3215, consideration 12, and 3733, consideration 12). In the instant case, it is apparent from the file that the floor of the podium set up for the seminar was defective and should have been repaired or, at least, signposted, as evidenced by the occurrence of the accident.[...]
    According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate environment for its staff, and they in turn have the right to insist on appropriate measures to protect their health and safety (see Judgments 3025, consideration 2, 2403, consideration 16, and 3689, consideration 5).
    In the instant case, the Organization, which had ordered the construction of the podium in which the hole was found, should have ensured that this work was properly carried out. It must therefore be recognized that the Organization is at fault.
    Pursuant to the principle that full compensation is due in respect of injuries caused by negligence on the part of the Administration, the complainant is entitled to compensation for injuries not already compensated under the Staff Compensation Plan.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2403, 2804, 3025, 3215, 3689, 3689, 3733, 3946

    Keywords:

    allowance; compensation; construction work; negligence; professional accident;



  • Judgment 3946


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the amounts she was awarded for the delay in processing her request for compensation for service-incurred illness.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    A claim for compensation for “actual and consequential” injuries is an entirely different claim that extends an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under a no-fault regime. As the Tribunal has consistently held, establishing such a claim requires proof of negligence on the part of the organization or the intentional breach of a duty (see Judgment 2843, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2843

    Keywords:

    injury; liability; negligence;



  • Judgment 3733


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision dismissing his two internal appeals on health-related claims.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    A cause of action by an official based on the negligence of the organisation that employs her or him contains several elements (see, for example, Judgment 2804, consideration 25). The first is that the organisation has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. The second is that liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    cause of action; negligence;



  • Judgment 3250


    116th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant was recognized as a victim of institutional harassment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "While the conduct of management which is necessary and reasonable would not constitute harassment, the present case demonstrates how continued mismanagement showing gross negligence on the part of the Organization cannot justify any longer the “managerial need” for the repeated temporary transfers of the complainant which had an ill effect on her. Taken individually, the isolated incidents [...] can perhaps be considered as improper but managerially justified, but taken as a whole the effect is much more damaging to the complainant and can no longer be excused by administrative necessity."

    Keywords:

    harassment; injury; institutional harassment; negligence; organisation's duties; professional injury; transfer; working conditions;



  • Judgment 3215


    115th Session, 2013
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complainant did not exhaust internal remedies concerning her claim of harassment and failed to prove negligence on the part of IAEA, the Tribunal dismissed her complaint.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "As discussed in Judgment 2804, negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury that was foreseeable. A person seeking damages for negligence bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation on which the claim is based."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2804

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; general principle; injury; liability; material damages; negligence; organisation's duties; professional accident; service-incurred; working conditions;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; negligence; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 3141


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 35 to 37

    Extract:

    The Tribunal must emphasise that the manner in which WHO handled this case amounted to serious wrongdoing. The abrupt termination of the complainant’s appointment after the measures adopted by the Swiss authorities was prompted by an anomalous situation which, although it was primarily due to the complainant’s unlawful presence in Switzerland dating back several years, was also the result of grave malfunctioning within the Organization.
    Indeed, when recruiting its officials an international organisation must ensure that their status complies with the laws of the host State governing the residence of aliens, failing which it may be held to have abused the privileges and immunities conferred upon it and upon its staff members.
    In the instant case WHO acted with great negligence from this point of view since, as is plain from the file, it failed to carry out any checks to ascertain the complainant’s status in this respect when he was recruited and when his appointment was extended on the first two occasions. This negligence was aggravated when the complainant then submitted an application for a legitimation card, because the Organization mechanically forwarded this application to the Permanent Mission of Switzerland, although the complainant merely produced the above-mentioned power of attorney with the letterhead of the UNIA trade union as proof that he was lawfully present in Switzerland. Clearly this document could not be deemed in any way to be the equivalent of a residence permit issued by the Swiss authorities, or even as a guarantee that the complainant’s status would be regularised in the near future.

    Keywords:

    host state; negligence; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 3134


    113th Session, 2012
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [I]t is not disputed that the Secretary of the Provident Scheme gave a positive oral response to the complainant's request and assured him that the transfer would be effected as soon as the agreement had been signed, and there is no doubt that in so doing the Secretary was acting in the exercise of his functions. The complainant could therefore assume in good faith that his rights would be transfered to the UNJSPF without his having to approach the Fund himself, in the manner provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement.
    The Provident Scheme did not, however, effect the expected transfer, as the letter [...] from its Secretary shows, nor does that letter explain why it had omitted to do so. It follows that the UPU has been negligent in this regard. It is clear that there is a sufficient causal link between its negligence and the injury suffered by the complainant, the amount of which remains to be determined.

    Keywords:

    causal link; injury; negligence;



  • Judgment 2906


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Even though [...] the Organisation was entitled to reverse the decision wrongly promoting the complainant to grade A5, the factual error on which its initial decision rested was nonetheless negligent. By submitting a draft decision whose content had not been properly checked for signature by the President, the services of the Organisation displayed gross negligence, which is even less excusable in view of the fact that individual decisions on promotion are of a particularly sensitive nature. The complainant obviously had cause to be extremely disappointed because, having been notified of this decision, he was then told that it had been reversed and that he had been promoted simply to grade A(2). By proceeding in this manner the EPO breached the duty which the Tribunal's case law establishes for every international organisation not to cause its staff unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgments 1526, under 3, or 2007, under 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1526, 2007

    Keywords:

    decision; individual decision; injury; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation's duties; promotion; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2861


    107th Session, 2009
    World Meteorological Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 91 and 93

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant seeks damages for the publication in the [Organization] monthly information bulletin that she had been separated from service, in the English version, and dismissed from service ('démise de ses fonctions') in the French version. The publication of this information was contrary to the Secretary-General's instructions but, even if published negligently, [the Organization] is liable for the damage occasioned to the complainant's reputation and dignity. In this regard, it was said in Judgment 2720 that 'international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members' (see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371 and 2475). It was also pointed out in Judgment 2720 that that obligation extends to former staff members."
    "There will be an award of material and moral damages in relation to the publication [...]. However, account will be taken of the facts that the publication resulted from negligence, not malice, that it was speedily withdrawn and that the Secretary-General apologised to the complainant. In Judgment 2720 mentioned above the Tribunal held that, in the case of a continuing duty of an organisation to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the reputation or dignity of its staff members, the Tribunal may order performance of that duty, including by ordering the publication of material to restore a person's reputation. The complainant seeks an order of that kind in the present case. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that her honour and reputation will be sufficiently vindicated by this judgment and by an award of damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720

    Keywords:

    compensation; damages; judgment of the tribunal; material injury; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2843


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Contrary to the Internal Appeals Committee’s view, it is well settled that in order to extend an organisation’s liability beyond its liability under its no-fault regime, a claimant must prove negligence or the intentional breach of a duty (see, for example, Judgments 435, under 5, and 2533, under 6).
    As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2804, under 25:
    “Negligence is the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent a foreseeable risk of injury. Liability in negligence is occasioned when the failure to take such steps causes an injury which was foreseeable.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 435, 2533, 2804

    Keywords:

    negligence; organisation's duties; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 2527


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    "Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations allowed the transfer of pension rights acquired by employees under a pension scheme prior to joining the Office only 'provided that that scheme allow[ed] such transfers to be made'. In the present case, it appears from the submissions that the INPS has not yet accepted the transfer to the EPO of pension rights acquired by employees who, like the complainant, were affiliated to the Italian state pension scheme. However regrettable it may be that employees of the Office in the position of the complainant are left at a disadvantage, the Office cannot be blamed for not amending the provisions of Article 12 at the risk of having to bear the costs of the transfer: the consent of the Italian authorities is clearly necessary before any such transfer can take place.

    Nevertheless, the Organisation must not have shown negligence or ill will in submitting the problem raised by the complainant to the Italian authorities. It emerges from the submissions, however, that the Italian authorities were approached unsuccessfully in 1992 and 1998 and [again in] 2004 [...]. The Organisation cannot therefore be accused of having 'blocked' the situation and the complainant is not justified in deeming its conduct to be unlawful."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 12(1) of the Pension Regulations

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; equal treatment; member state; negligence; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;



  • Judgment 2151


    93rd Session, 2002
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal will not undertake a job classification exercise, which lies solely within the authority of the defendant. However, the succession of errors made in this case, as acknowledged both by the Classification Review Committee and the [Organisation] itself, leaves room for serious doubts concerning the objectivity of the rationale for the classifications that are being challenged. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainants must not suffer any injury from the Organisation's impossibility to reconstitute the elements on which the classification was made. [The Tribunal] has to assess the effects of the errors committed and of the [Organisation]'s inability to indicate precisely the methods followed by the consultant in his recommendation to maintain the complainants' posts at [the same] grade."

    Keywords:

    complainant; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;



  • Judgment 1975


    89th Session, 2000
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant, a security guard, was dismissed for committing a fault: he had disactivated an alarm button to prevent it from setting off inadvertently and had forgotten to tell his colleagues. "The oversight by the Personnel Department, which omitted to carry out the statutory medical examination [on cessation of service], does not affect the lawfulness of the impugned decision."

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; due process; effect; medical examination; misconduct; negligence; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1889


    87th Session, 1999
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    The complainant was assigned to Chad in 1991 and contracted Hepatitis B in 1993. "The Appeals Committee considers that the medical service did not completely fulfil its role and did not offer the staff member concerned the advice that it could have supplied. The Appeals Committee even refers to responsibility being equally shared'. In practice, there could be no grave fault of the medical service incurring the responsibility of the organization unless the protective measures recommended by a competent authority had been disregarded. In the material case, the organization demonstrates that in 1991 [...] the World Health Organization's guidelines did not specifically recommend vaccination against Hepatitis B for persons posted to African countries affected by an endemic illness of this type."

    Keywords:

    breach; illness; liability; medical consultant; negligence; no provision; organisation; organisation's duties; rule of another organisation; service-incurred;



  • Judgment 1376


    77th Session, 1994
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "Any organisation that is serious about deterring sexual harassment and consequential abuse of authority by a superior officer must be seen to take proper action. In particular victims of such behaviour must feel confident that it will take their allegations seriously and not let them be victimised on that account. In this case the WHO has utterly failed to protect the complainant's rights."

    Keywords:

    bias; breach; misuse of authority; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; right to reply; sexual harassment; staff member's interest; supervisor;



  • Judgment 1370


    77th Session, 1994
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "Judgment 1317 [...] brought out the need for a properly functioning internal appeal procedure, of which the Appeal Board is an essential part. In this case the Board took far too long to report and failed to perform its function properly. Although in the circumstances the shortcomings of the appeal procedure may not be deemed to constitute bad faith, the ITU was negligent and caused the complainant injury. On that account it must afford him redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317

    Keywords:

    case law; compensation; delay; flaw; good faith; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; negligence; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; report; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 1261


    75th Session, 1993
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, whose duties included processing claims for overtime hours, was charged with using the organization's funds for his own benefit and suspended. He is seeking payment for 150 hours' overtime. The Tribunal holds that "it was his duty as the responsible officer to ensure that the organization's rules were being complied with. If they were not he should have brought the matter to the notice of his supervisors. There is no evidence that he did so. That he may have failed to apply the rules in processing claims from other employees does not entitle him to object that the organization is wrong to apply them to him. [...] The conclusion is that he failed to comply with the rules on overtime claims."

    Keywords:

    disciplinary measure; negligence; overtime; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    The complainant, whose duties included processing claims for payment of overtime hours, was charged with using the organization's funds for his own benefits and suspended. He has not managed to show that he did the overtime. So his claim of payment of the overtime hours, like his claim to damages and interests, fails.

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; disciplinary measure; negligence; overtime; payment; request by a party; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 1238


    74th Session, 1993
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal ordered the complainant's reinstatement in Judgment 999. But the Director-General decided that reinstatement was not in the interest of the organization and awarded him compensation. "To condemn someone to unemployment on account of a single negligent act unaccompanied by improper intention, and in circumstances that do not justify loss of confidence by the employer, is to demand a humanly impossible standard of performance by the employee and makes the right to reinstatement illusory."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 999

    Keywords:

    complainant; discretion; good faith; limits; negligence; organisation; organisation's interest; proportionality; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Even if the Director-General has discretion to refuse reinstatement 'in the interest of the organization' he must exercise it fairly and reasonably after considering all the material facts. Here the facts were that the complainant had throughout had irreproachable appraisal reports. [...] Despite surveillance, without his knowledge, for six months prior to [the incident that led to his dismissal] no wrongdoing, negligence or irregularity on his part was discovered. [...] The Director-General has failed to take into consideration the above material facts and has erred in treating the complainant as guilty of a 'cover-up'. The refusal of reinstatement was thus not a proper exercise of whatever discretion he had in the matter."

    Keywords:

    complainant; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; organisation; organisation's interest; performance report; refusal; reinstatement; right; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 1111


    71st Session, 1991
    International Criminal Police Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The complainant, having tendered her resignation, was mistakenly paid a termination indemnity upon the transfer of Interpol's Headquarters to Lyons. The organisation ordered repayment. "[T]he Secretary General's decision to claim the sum back from her is a discretionary one. In deciding whether to demand full or part repayment he takes accounts of such factors as the staff member's good or bad faith, the sort of mistake that has been made, the organization's own and the staff member's negligence and the inconvenience which the demand, made necessary by the organization's own oversight, will put the staff member to. So the Tribunal will exercise only a limited power of review over the decision."

    Keywords:

    discretion; good faith; judicial review; negligence; recovery of overpayment; terminal entitlements;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.09.2020 ^ top