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

Organisation's duties

You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation's duties
Total judgments found: 724

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 | next >



  • Judgment 2529


    101st Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law is voluminous and consistent to the effect that an organisation owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1212, 1386, 2170, 2414

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty to inform; organisation's duties; probation; termination; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2527


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

    Considerations 9 and 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; equal treatment; member state; negligence; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;



  • Judgment 2524


    100th Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "There were [...] fundamental errors of law in the approach of the [Joint Appeals] Panel. It proceeded on the basis that it was necessary to establish an intention to 'intimidate, insult, harass, abuse, discriminate or humiliate a colleague' and concluded that there must be 'bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent' before that intention could be inferred. That is not correct. Harassment and mobbing do not require any such intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; evidence; good faith; harassment; mistake of law; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 26

    Extract:

    "The Joint Appeals Panel [examining a case of alleged harassment] fell into [...] error by analysing certain of the incidents upon which the complainant relied as separate or independent events without considering them in their overall context."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of facts; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; effect; evidence; harassment; internal appeal; internal appeals body; material error; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    To advance serious allegations that have not been properly investigated against an official before a body that must issue a decision or recommendation concerning that official amounts to "serious failure of due process and want of fairness and good faith".

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; appraisal of facts; breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; due process; equity; good faith; internal appeals body; material error; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;

    Consideration 32

    Extract:

    "Although the complainant provided the report of [her doctor] to the Joint Appeals Panel, that did not amount to implied authorisation for it to be given to [her two successive supervisors] for their comments (see Judgment 2271, under 7). There were other means available to the Administration to obtain answers from [the supervisors] to the claims made by the complainant. The disclosure to them of the medical report was a serious breach of confidence and one that, in the circumstances, was particularly insensitive."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; confidential evidence; internal appeals body; medical opinion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; supervisor;



  • Judgment 2522


    100th Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal concludes that the internal appeal proceedings were not conducted with due diligence or with the care owed by an international organisation to its staff. The complainant had reason to believe that the Agency was making every effort to hamper the proceedings to prevent them from being concluded within a reasonable time. He was not informed of the final outcome of his internal appeal until nearly two months after the Director General had taken his final decision. Moreover, the latter replied to the complainant's request for review more than three months after the request was submitted, and only after an appeal had been lodged with the Joint Appeals Board. The Tribunal concludes from the above that the complainant suffered moral injury."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; delay; due process; evidence; internal appeal; late decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; procedure; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;



  • Judgment 2521


    100th Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has frequently pointed out that it is for the person alleging harassment to prove specific facts supporting that allegation (see Judgments 2067, 2100, 2370 and 2406). [...] As with the facts relied on to establish harassment, it is for the person making the allegation to establish that the acts or decisions in question were accompanied by some purpose or attitude which allows them to be so characterised."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2100, 2370, 2406

    Keywords:

    appraisal of facts; burden of proof; case law; decision; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    In a case of moral harassment, the existence of "other complaints [...] might [...] support [...] the claim of harassment, but the absence of complaint could not be used to support the contrary proposition."

    Keywords:

    complaint; evidence; harassment; lack of evidence; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; subsidiary;



  • Judgment 2515


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; due process; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal; organisation's duties; post; post held by complainant; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; vacancy notice;

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 2513


    100th Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Deputy Director General submitted a memorandum requesting one-year extensions of contract for the complainant and six other officials who had reached the statutory age of retirement. The Director General dealt with all seven requests. Three were granted. In the complainant's case, the request for extension was simply turned down without any reason being given. The Tribunal recalls its case-law according to which a provision such as Staff Regulation 4.05 gives the Director General a wide measure of discretion and the Tribunal will not interfere in the exercise of that discretion except in extremely limited circumstances. The Tribunal recently confirmed as much in Judgment 2377, which also concerns the IAEA retirement policy. That case is not authority, however, for the proposition that the power to extend appointments beyond normal retirement age can be exercised arbitrarily. In the present case, "[i]t is impossible to conclude other than that the decision in the complainant's case was made for some undisclosed or purely arbitrary reason. Therefore, it cannot stand."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.05
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377

    Keywords:

    age limit; bias; case law; complaint allowed; decision; decision quashed; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; retirement; staff regulations and rules;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes [...] that in the absence of special circumstances such as a compelling need to preserve confidentiality, internal appellate bodies such as the [Joint Appeals Board] must strictly observe the rules of due process and natural justice and that those rules normally require a full opportunity for interested parties to be present at the hearing of witnesses and to make full answer in defence."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; applicable law; complaint allowed; confidential evidence; due process; exception; general principle; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure; right to reply; testimony;



  • Judgment 2507


    100th Session, 2006
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Criticism of a subordinate's performance and behaviour, even in inappropriately strong language, does not, of itself, evidence harassment or prejudice. Certainly, that is so where [...] the performance and behaviour in question are confirmed by other senior and responsible officials. That being so, and there being no other evidence to support the complainant's claims, the allegations of harassment and prejudice must be rejected."

    Keywords:

    bias; conduct; different appraisals; evidence; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2503


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant was assigned to the Organisation by temporary employment agencies. "The fact that Eurocontrol relied on its immunity from jurisdiction and on the Tribunal's competence to hear disputes between the Agency and its staff in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the conseil de prud'hommes, cannot deprive it of its right to request that the Tribunal decline jurisdiction in accordance with its Statute."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat statute; municipal court; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; receivability; right;



  • Judgment 2496


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "A decision as serious as one imposing a disciplinary measure will be lawful only provided that the rights of the staff members concerned to a fully adversarial procedure have been scrupulously respected. Charges must be precisely worded and notified sufficiently early to enable the staff member concerned to defend his case, particularly by establishing evidence and gathering testimonies which he believes are likely to refute the charges in the eyes of the disciplinary body and of the deciding authority, according to the nature of the charges against him."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; advisory body; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; condition; date of notification; decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; executive head; international civil servant; organisation's duties; right; right to reply; testimony; time limit;



  • Judgment 2494


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Eurocontrol contends that Mr R.'s complaint is time-barred because it was filed more than three months after the notification of the decision rejecting his internal complaint. However, the Agency has produced no evidence of the date on which that decision was effectively notified. Failing such evidence, which it is the Agency's responsibility to provide, that complaint must be regarded as having been filed in good time."

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date of notification; decision; disclosure of evidence; evidence; internal appeal; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; receivability; refusal; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2493


    100th Session, 2006
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; collective rights; competence; complaint allowed; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;



  • Judgment 2475


    99th Session, 2005
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he obligations of an employer to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of its employees determine what is permissible. In particular, these considerations require that an investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; complaint allowed; condition; good faith; inquiry; international civil servant; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2473


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
    Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; complainant; complaint; complaint allowed; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2468


    99th Session, 2005
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "The procedures used to assess the performance of international civil servants must be both transparent and adversarial."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; international civil servant; organisation's duties; work appraisal;

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    The complainant's appointment was terminated. "It may be concluded from all the circumstances of the case that, even though the complainant's conduct towards his supervisor was not what might be expected of an international civil servant and would probably have justified preventive action on the part of the Organization, the reasons given to establish that the complainant's abilities and performance were unsatisfactory did not suffice to justify terminating his appointment for unsatisfactory services.
    The complainant's [...] claim for retroactive reinstatement, with all legal consequences, within the Organization's staff [is well founded]."

    Keywords:

    complainant; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; conduct; consequence; insubordination; international civil servant; organisation's duties; qualifications; reinstatement; right; supervisor; termination; unsatisfactory service; working relations;



  • Judgment 2467


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2461


    99th Session, 2005
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 1 to 3

    Extract:

    ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
    "The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute
    Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations

    Keywords:

    iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; international civil servant; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2458


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
    The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; application for execution; appointment; breach; collective bargaining; complainant; condition; delay; execution; good faith; internal appeal; judgment; judicial review; liability; medical board; misconduct; negligence; order; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure; request; right; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2456


    99th Session, 2005
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 11

    Extract:

    The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."

    Keywords:

    allowance; appointment; complaint allowed; consequence; contract; date; decision; decision quashed; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension; fixed-term; general principle; international civil servant; material error; mistake of fact; non-renewal; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2450


    99th Session, 2005
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[T]here is no rule or general principle that obliges an international organisation to reimburse its staff for taxes payable outside the host country pursuant to legislation which is not that of the host country."

    Keywords:

    applicable law; domestic law; general principle; headquarters; organisation; organisation's duties; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 | next >


 
Last updated: 05.03.2015 ^ top