Respect for dignity (205, 206,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Respect for dignity
Total judgments found: 133
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3104
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he fact that the complainant was not given enough work upon her return from sick leave, which led her to feel marginalised and humiliated, offended her dignity and constitutes an element of the breach of duty of care."
Keywords:
duty of care; organisation's duties; refusal to assign work; respect for dignity; sick leave;
Judgment 3099
112th Session, 2012
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he obligation to treat staff members with dignity and the duty of good faith required, at the very least, that there be an accurate record of the interviews, which could have been achieved by, for example, the making of a transcript by a competent stenographer."
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; recording; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal has [...] consistently held 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” and that these two considerations “are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity” (see Judgment 2529, under 15, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2529
Keywords:
good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3071
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 48
Extract:
"An international organisation has a responsibility to treat its officials with dignity. If criticism is warranted [...] that should be done either by means of the performance appraisal reports or in a manner that ensures respect for the staff member's dignity."
Keywords:
duty of care; organisation's duties; performance report; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]t is well settled that statements made in good faith in response to criticism or attack do not attract liability for defamation."
Keywords:
liability; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2955
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The defendant asks the Tribunal to find that, especially in his rejoinder, the complainant engaged in 'completely gratuitous and misplaced [...] personal attacks'. It asks the Tribunal 'to censure such inappropriate language which detracts from the proper conduct of the proceedings'.
The complainant, who is not assisted by a lawyer, has certainly used, in his complaint and rejoinder, blunt, colourful language which is not always very courteous. However, this wording does not exceed the bounds of what is acceptable in the context of legal proceedings."
Keywords:
rejoinder; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2938
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034
Keywords:
accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by the complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vacancy;
Judgment 2931
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12 and 14
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Organization breached its duty of care in failing to accommodate him in another post or in a manner less drastic than the non-renewal of his appointment. [...]
The Organization had no obligation under the 200 Series of the Staff Rules to find an alternative post for the complainant. However, it had a duty to explore with him possible options prior to his separation. The failure to do so was an affront to his dignity and showed a lack of respect for him as a highly regarded long-serving staff member."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; respect for dignity; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2895
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that WHO's unilateral decision to "waive" the exit medical examination constitutes a violation of Staff Rule 1085. It also finds that, although there is no evidence that the decision was motivated by malice, the manner in which the Organization dealt with this issue was an affront to the complainant's dignity."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2879
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[A]n e-mail was sent to all WIPO staff regarding the article that had appeared in the newspaper. The e-mail stated that the allegations in the press had proven to be false. It also stated that in light of the seriousness of the breach of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service sanctions were applied to the staff member concerned. Even though the complainant was not named, her alleged connection with the article was well known to many staff members. This constituted a violation of her privacy and was an affront to her dignity."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO Staff regulations and Staff Rules; Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2878
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
"[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841
Keywords:
breach; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;
Judgment 2869
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."
Keywords:
abuse of power; bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
"At the material time, the Centre had not formally adopted a procedure for the selection of candidates for vacant posts; however, it had developed a set of Guidelines."
"Although the Guidelines do not have the force of formally adopted regulations or rules, they are intended to foster a transparent selection procedure in which candidates are fairly evaluated against selection criteria. The process in the present case [...] undermines the credibility of the procedure and is an affront to the dignity of the complainant, who submitted his candidature in good faith and with the expectation that it would be considered in accordance with the procedure found in the Guidelines."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 2393
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; difference; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity;
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;
Considerations 97-99
Extract:
The complainant argues that she was discharged from the continuing obligation of confidentiality when her employment was unlawfully terminated.
"There is no doubt that an international civil servant is under an obligation of discretion (see Judgments 1608 and 1732)."
"In the present case, the complainant had unsuccessfully availed herself of internal appeal procedures with respect to the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of IAS, her attempt to raise her claim of harassment had been rejected as 'abusive and ill driven' without investigation and her request for review of the decision not to renew her contract led to her summary dismissal. In these circumstances, it is to be doubted that there was a continuing obligation of complete discretion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1608, 1732
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Consideration 27
Extract:
"[I]t must be taken to be normal practice in any international organisation to involve the Chief of a Section or Department in plans for its reorganisation. Not to do so would, ordinarily, constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person."
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"In its submissions the Organization details the comprehensive training strategy that was established to enable the complainant to strengthen his skills. [T]hat strategy included participation in a number of courses and a half-time secondment to the IRIS project to allow the complainant exposure to the new system."
"The Tribunal concludes that, in the circumstances, the Organization did its utmost to respect the complainant's dignity and good name and not to cause him any harm. Despite the fact that the complainant did not possess the requisite skills, the grade P.3 position was designated at grade P.4 and his personal grade was not altered."
Keywords:
decision; grade; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; qualifications; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; training; transfer;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It is [...] clear that a transfer of a non-disciplinary nature «is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."
Keywords:
assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."
Keywords:
assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Upon being informed of the complainant's forthcoming marriage to the Director of her division, it was entirely proper for the Organization to consider whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules or its policy were engaged. It was equally proper to obtain advice on these matters. However, there was no need to canvas the views of some 40 staff members. [...] While properly structured consultations with staff through their association on matters of policy and regulations is appropriate, the canvassing of individual staff members in these circumstances was highly inappropriate and their individual views were irrelevant."
Keywords:
consultation; marital status; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2819
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Although the complainant's dignity has been seriously injured, and consistently injured over a period of three and a half years, he has suffered no financial loss and his claims for compensation and for moral damages are excessive. [...] The complainant will be adequately compensated by an award of moral damages in the amount of 25,000 euros. There will be an award of costs of these proceedings and the internal appeal proceedings in the amount of 5,000 euros."
Keywords:
amount; complainant; costs; injury; lack of injury; material injury; respect for dignity;
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;
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is well settled that a transfer decision, if of a nondisciplinary nature, «must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). Given that the new tasks of the complainant involve none of the tasks specified in the Service Regulations for a grade A6 post, it must be concluded that the transfer did not respect his dignity. There are two other matters that indicate a lack of respect for the complainant's dignity. First, there is the Vice- President's e-mail of 9 January 2006 that was transmitted to all other Principal Directors in his Directorate and that clearly impugned the complainant's ability to perform his functions as head of the Joint Cluster Computers. [...] There was no need to justify the decision to the complainant's peers and the e-mail could only lessen his standing in their eyes. The second matter is that the complainant was not provided with any staff - not even a secretary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
grade; post; respect for dignity; status of complainant; terms of appointment; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2779
106th Session, 2009
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has found, even though he was not competent to make the representation, Mr [...] made a promise to the complainant that his appointment would be extended beyond statutory retirement age. Mr R. also fostered the complainant's false belief that the promise would be honoured. Despite the complainant's numerous requests over a period of approximately 18 months clearly explaining his belief that a promise had been made, the Secretary-General chose to ignore the opportunities to correct the complainant's misapprehensions and permitted him to act on his mistaken belief. Lastly, the Secretary-General failed to make a decision on the complainant's request for an extension in a timely fashion. This conduct constitutes a breach of the duty to respect the complainant's dignity. At the very least, the Secretary-General should have notified the complainant that the Union did not accept the obligation when the matter was first brought to his attention. This conduct has caused the complainant moral injury for which he must be compensated in the form of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; decision-maker; duration of appointment; extension beyond retirement age; good faith; injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; promise; respect for dignity; retirement; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 24
Extract:
"There is no evidence of improper motive or unequal treatment in the performance of what was a regular and routine management function. Accordingly, there is no basis for a finding of harassment (see Judgment 1732)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1732
Keywords:
equal treatment; grounds; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The general requirement with respect to due process in relation to an investigation - that being the function performed by the Investigation Panel in this case - is as set out in Judgment 2475, namely, that the "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". At least that is so where no procedure is prescribed. Where, as here, there is a prescribed procedure, that procedure must be observed. Additionally, it is necessary that there be a fair investigation, in the sense described in Judgment 2475, and that there be an opportunity to answer the evidence and the charges."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2475
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
