TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
You searched for:
Keywords: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
Total judgments found: 1,647
< 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, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 | next >
Judgment 1849
87th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 18 AND 19
Extract:
"THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS JURISPRUDENCE, IF AN OFFICIAL RECEIVES AN OVERPAYMENT BY MISTAKE IT SHOULD BE REIMBURSED. NEVERTHELESS, THE ORGANIZATION SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD MAKE IT UNFAIR OR UNJUST TO REQUIRE REPAYMENT. [...] IN THE TRIBUNAL'S OPINION THERE IS NO INDEBTEDNESS BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE ORGANIZATION. IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED NATIONS, BUT HAS BEEN FULLY REIMBURSED. THE ORGANIZATION THEREFORE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD THE GRANTS DUE OR MAKE DEDUCTIONS FROM SALARY UNDER RULE 380.5.2 SINCE THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT INDEBTED TO IT."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 380.5.2 OF THE WHO
Keywords:
amount; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; debt; deduction; equity; exception; recovery of overpayment; refund; unjust enrichment;
Judgment 1848
87th session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 12
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT QUESTIONS THE RIGHT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO WHICH SHE IS AFFILIATED TO CONTACT HER PHYSICIANS DIRECTLY TO SEEK INFORMATION. "THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT [THE INSURANCE COMPANY] IS ENTITLED TO ANY INFORMATION WHICH IDENTIFIES THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED ILLNESS AND ALLOWS IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED TREATMENT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY [...] OF COURSE THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REQUIRE THAT SUCH INFORMATION ONLY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO [THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S] MEDICAL ADVISER AND BE TREATED BY THE LATTER IN CONFIDENCE BUT SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD FROM THEM ANY RIGHT OF ACCESS WHATSOEVER TO THE REQUIRED MEDICAL INFORMATION. HER UNWILLINGNESS TO ALLOW SUCH ACCESS GOES AGAINST HER DUTY TO DEAL IN GOOD FAITH WITH HER INSURERS."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
Keywords:
conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1845
87th session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 10
Extract:
"UNDER ARTICLE II(6) OF ITS STATUTE THE TRIBUNAL IS OPEN TO A FORMER STAFF MEMBER. HOWEVER, ARTICLE II(5) RESTRICTS THE COMPETENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL, RATIONE MATERIAE, TO COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE NON-OBSERVANCE, IN SUBSTANCE OR IN FORM, OF THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT OF A STAFF MEMBER OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE STAFF REGULATIONS. ON EXPIRY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CONTRACT, HE CEASED TO BE A STAFF MEMBER. HIS COMPLAINT, CONCERNING HIS NON-SELECTION [TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT TO THE HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION] DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY ALLEGATION OF THE VIOLATION OF ANY RIGHTS WHICH HE ENJOYED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OR THE STAFF REGULATIONS INSOFAR AS THEY CONTINUED TO APPLY TO HIM. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE [CANNOT] ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT".
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) ILOAT STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) ILOAT STATUTE
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; contract; enforcement; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1843
87th session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 11 AND 12
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT ATTEND THE COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION ON TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT WHICH HE HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO UNDERGO. "A MEDICAL EXAMINATION AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY: IT IS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH WITH SOME DEGREE OF CERTAINTY - IN THE INTERESTS OF BOTH PARTIES - A STAFF MEMBER'S STATE OF HEALTH UPON TERMINATION. [...] THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS THAT ARTICLE R II 4.20 B) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DISQUALIFIED THE COMPLAINANT FROM MAKING A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF A WORK-RELATED INJURY OR ILLNESS DISCOVERED AFTER TERMINATION".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 4.20 B) OF THE ESO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
allowance; enforcement; illness; medical examination; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1839
86th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 16 AND 17
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANTS PLEAD THAT THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVES HAVING WITHDRAWN, THE [LOCAL SALARY SURVEY COMMITTEE] WAS NO LONGER COMPETENT TO ACT AND THAT THE ORGANIZATION WAS IN BREACH OF ITS DUTY OF CONSULTING THE STAFF EITHER THROUGH SUCH A BODY OR ELSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF REGULATION 8.1, DIRECTLY. [THIS] PLEA [...] MUST FAIL. NOT ONLY DID THE COMMITTEE AND ITS WORKING PARTY BOTH COMPRISING STAFF REPRESENTATIVES FUNCTION FOR MANY MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY BEGAN, BUT THE COMMITTEE DID NOT, AS THE COMPLAINANTS MAKE OUT, CEASE TO EXIST AFTER THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVES HAD WITHDRAWN. THE [ORGANIZATION] REPEATEDLY INVITED THEM TO TAKE PART, AND THEIR REFUSAL TO DO SO DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DISQUALIFYING THE COMMITTEE OR INVALIDATING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. THE METHODOLOGY [OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION] PROVIDES IN PARAGRAPH 6 THAT, THOUGH IT IS PREFERABLE TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH MANAGEMENT AND STAFF TAKE PART, THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS WILL STILL BE MET EVEN IF ONE SIDE PREFERS NOT TO; SO THAT ACTUAL PARTICIPATION BY BOTH SIDES IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. NOR WAS THERE ANY BREACH OF REGULATION 8.1. [THE TRIBUNAL DRAWS AN ANALOGY BETWEEN THIS ISSUE AND THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN JUDGMENT 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO'S STAFF REGULATION 8.1 PARAGRAPH 6, METHODOLOGY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
case law; competence; composition; consultation; delegated authority; formal requirements; icsc decision; organisation's duties; participation; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1838
86th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 16 AND 17
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANTS PLEAD THAT THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVES HAVING WITHDRAWN, THE [LOCAL SALARY SURVEY COMMITTEE] WAS NO LONGER COMPETENT TO ACT AND THAT THE ORGANIZATION WAS IN BREACH OF ITS DUTY OF CONSULTING THE STAFF EITHER THROUGH SUCH A BODY OR ELSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF REGULATION 8.1, DIRECTLY. [THIS] PLEA [...] MUST FAIL. NOT ONLY DID THE COMMITTEE AND ITS WORKING PARTY BOTH COMPRISING STAFF REPRESENTATIVES FUNCTION FOR MANY MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY BEGAN, BUT THE COMMITTEE DID NOT, AS THE COMPLAINANTS MAKE OUT, CEASE TO EXIST AFTER THE STAFF REPRESENTATIVES HAD WITHDRAWN. THE [ORGANIZATION] REPEATEDLY INVITED THEM TO TAKE PART, AND THEIR REFUSAL TO DO SO DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DISQUALIFYING THE COMMITTEE OR INVALIDATING ITS RECOMMENDATIONS. NOR WAS THERE ANY BREACH OF REGULATION 8.1. [THE TRIBUNAL DRAWS AN ANALOGY BETWEEN THIS ISSUE AND THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN JUDGMENT 1565]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO'S STAFF REGULATION 8.1
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1565
Keywords:
advisory body; case law; competence; composition; consultation; delegated authority; organisation's duties; qualifications; recommendation; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 1834
86th session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 3
Extract:
"THE COMPLAINANT [PLEADS] THAT THE DECISION TO TERMINATE [HER APPOINTMENT] WAS NOT 'INITIATED' BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, AS STAFF RULE 110.04 REQUIRED. [...] IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STAFF RULE THE WORD 'INITIATED' DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL HIMSELF MUST BE THE FIRST PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL; IT SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT THE ACTION, WHEN TAKEN, BE ON THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S BEHALF AND WITH HIS PRIOR APPROVAL."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO'S STAFF RULE 110.04
Keywords:
competence; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; organisation's duties; termination;
CONSIDERATION 7
Extract:
THE ORGANIZATION PLACED THE COMPLAINANT ON SPECIAL LEAVE WITHOUT PAY IN AUGUST 1995, AND TOLD HER IN JANUARY 1996 THAT TO STAY ON SPECIAL LEAVE SHE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF INABILITY TO GO BACK TO WORK. "THE COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT HER SEPARATION WAS IN BREACH OF HER SPECIAL LEAVE STATUS. [THE TRIBUNAL HOLDS THAT] THE RECEIPT OF [MONTHLY MEDICAL] REPORTS BY THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER WAS CLEARLY A CONDITION OF HER MAINTAINING SPECIAL LEAVE STATUS. HER REFUSAL, WITHOUT PERSUASIVE JUSTIFICATION, TO SUBMIT THE REQUESTED INFORMATION [OVER SEVERAL MONTHS] IS A BREACH OF THAT CONDITION AND AMPLE INDICATION OF HER INTENT TO ABANDON HER POST."
Keywords:
abandonment of post; condition; illness; medical certificate; refusal; special leave; staff member's duties; termination;
Judgment 1831
86th session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 13
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED FROM THE ORGANIZATION FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. "THE COMPLAINANT ARGUES THAT THE SEVERITY OF THE SANCTION IMPOSED WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. GIVEN THE EVIDENCE OF DEEP-ROOTED FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN THE OFFICE FOR WHICH HE WAS RESPONSIBLE, THE MISCONDUCT WAS SERIOUS AND THE SANCTION FULLY JUSTIFIED."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination;
Judgment 1828
86th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 12
Extract:
"EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT AT STAKE WAS NOT LARGE, AN INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE ORGANIZATION IS A MOST SERIOUS OFFENCE. THE ORGANIZATION MAY EXPECT THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY FROM ITS STAFF; IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY JUST OVERLOOK THE FRAUD; AND THERE WAS NOTHING DISPROPORTIONATE ABOUT DISMISSING [THE COMPLAINANT] FOR THE MISCONDUCT SHE HAD COMMITTED."
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; summary dismissal; termination;
Judgment 1827
86th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 6
Extract:
"THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION IS NECESSARILY BASED ON MERIT AND REQUIRES A HIGH DEGREE OF JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION PROCESS. THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE THE TRIBUNAL INTERFERE MUST DEMONSTRATE A SERIOUS DEFECT IN IT; IT IS NOT ENOUGH SIMPLY TO ASSERT THAT ONE IS BETTER QUALIFIED THAN THE SELECTED CANDIDATE."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
Judgment 1821
86th session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 7
Extract:
"THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE LIMITS ON THE DISCRETION OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS TO SET ADJUSTMENTS IN STAFF PAY [...] MAY BE CONCISELY STATED AS FOLLOWS: (A) AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION IS FREE TO CHOOSE A METHODOLOGY, SYSTEM OR STANDARD OF REFERENCE FOR DETERMINING SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR ITS STAFF PROVIDED THAT IT MEETS ALL OTHER PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE LAW [...] (B) THE CHOSEN METHODOLOGY MUST ENSURE THAT THE RESULTS ARE 'STABLE, FORESEEABLE AND CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD' [...] (C) WHERE THE METHODOLOGY REFERS TO AN EXTERNAL STANDARD BUT GRANTS DISCRETION TO THE GOVERNING BODY TO DEPART FROM THAT STANDARD, THE ORGANISATION HAS A DUTY TO STATE PROPER REASONS FOR SUCH DEPARTURE [...] (D) WHILE THE NECESSITY OF SAVING MONEY MAY BE ONE VALID FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN ADJUSTING SALARIES PROVIDED THE METHOD ADOPTED IS OBJECTIVE, STABLE AND FORESEEABLE [...], THE MERE DESIRE TO SAVE MONEY AT THE STAFF'S EXPENSE IS NOT BY ITSELF A VALID REASON FOR DEPARTING FROM AN ESTABLISHED STANDARD OF REFERENCE [...]" SEE CITED CASE LAW.
Keywords:
adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; complaint allowed; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
Judgment 1818
86th session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 15
Extract:
THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND STAFF RULES AIMING AT PROTECTING STAFF MEMBERS AGAINST TERMINATION IN THE COURSE OF SICK LEAVE DO NOT PREVENT AN ORGANIZATION FROM ACCEPTING, DURING SUCH LEAVE, THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION OF A STAFF MEMBER, IF THE LATTER WROTE HIS LETTER OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.
Keywords:
acceptance; condition; lack of consent; resignation; sick leave; staff regulations and rules; termination;
Judgment 1817
86th session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 11(A)
Extract:
"BEFORE DISMISSING SOMEONE ON THE GROUNDS OF PERFORMANCE AN ORGANISATION MUST ORDINARILY GIVE FAIRLY PROMPT WARNING SO AS TO ALLOW FOR IMPROVEMENT. BUT ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS THAT THE STAFF MEMBER BE AWARE OF THE RISK OF DISMISSAL AND OF THE NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT. IF THE STAFF MEMBER STILL PROVES UNSATISFACTORY, DISMISSAL WILL BE IN ORDER EVEN IF FOUNDED ON NEW SHORTCOMINGS THAT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE THAT PROMPTED THE WARNING [...] AND AGAIN THOSE RULES HOLD GOOD MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR ENDING PROBATION". THE TRIBUNAL CITES THE CASE LAW.
Keywords:
case law; duty to inform; organisation's duties; probation; termination; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
CONSIDERATION 7
Extract:
"THE CASE LAW SAYS THAT AN ORGANISATION MAY NOT TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION THAT AFFECTS STATUS BEFORE GIVING THE STAFF MEMBER THE OPPORTUNITY OF ANSWERING (SEE JUDGMENT 1484 [...]). AND THAT RULE APPLIES, OF COURSE, TO DISMISSAL OF A PROBATIONER."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484
Keywords:
amendment; contract; organisation's duties; probation; right to reply; termination;
CONSIDERATION 11
Extract:
"POOR PERFORMANCE DOES NOT WARRANT ENDING A PROBATIONARY APPOINTMENT UNLESS THERE IS NOT SOME HOPE OF REASONABLY EARLY IMPROVEMENT, USUALLY BY THE EXPIRY OF THE PROBATION."
Keywords:
condition; period; probation; termination; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 1815
86th session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 5
Extract:
THE BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR APPRAISING THE COMPLAINANT'S APPLICATION FOR PERSONAL PROMOTION HAD PUT FORWARD A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. "TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS BOTH IN INTERNAL PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE STAFF MEMBER MUST GET ANY ITEMS OF INFORMATION MATERIAL TO THE OUTCOME. AND ONE SUCH ITEM IS THE NAMES OF THE ADVISORY BODY'S MEMBERS. WHO THEY ARE MAY OF COURSE AFFECT ITS REASONING AND THE WEIGHT ITS REPORT CARRIES, AND SO THE STAFF MEMBER SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT LEAST TO COMMENT. THAT IS WHY THE TRIBUNAL WILL ACKNOWLEDGE A COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO KNOW WHO SAT IN HIS CASE."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1814
86th session, 1999
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 9
Extract:
"THOUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DOES HAVE DISCRETION [AS TO WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A DEPENDENT CHILD], THE STAFF MEMBER MUST BE MADE AWARE OF ANY CRITERIA HE IS APPLYING." (SEE JUDGMENT 1204).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204
Keywords:
complaint allowed in part; criteria; dependant; dependent child; discretion; duty to inform; executive head; family allowance; limits; organisation's duties; parent;
Judgment 1811
86th session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
THE COMPLAINANT ASKED THAT HIS INTERIM REPORT BE STRUCK FROM HIS PERSONAL FILE ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT HAD PROMPTED THE REFUSAL OF HIS WITHIN-GRADE STEP INCREMENT. "IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE COMPLAINANT'S FILE SHOULD CONTAIN ANY PAPERS LAWFULLY MADE OUT AND BEARING ON HIS SERVICES WITH THE ORGANIZATION, SAVE MEDICAL REPORTS. [...] HIS CLAIM TO REMOVAL OF THE INTERIM REVIEW FROM HIS FILE MUST FAIL: THERE WAS NOTHING UNLAWFUL ABOUT THAT TEXT AND IT WAS IN ANY EVENT SUPERSEDED BY THE FINAL APPRAISAL, WHICH WAS GOOD."
Keywords:
career; complainant; exception; medical records; performance report; personal file; withdrawal of decision; work appraisal;
Judgment 1808
86th session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 7
Extract:
"GRADING TURNS ON THE DUTIES OF THE POST, NOT ON THE QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE. NOR DO THE MASTER STANDARD FOR CLASSIFICATION OF PROFESSIONAL POSTS AND THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES OF THE PROFESSIONAL GRADING APPEALS COMMITTEE LAY ANY DUTY ON THE [ORGANIZATION] TO MAKE AVAILABLE AN OFFICIAL'S PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A GRADING EXERCISE".
Keywords:
criteria; grade; icsc decision; organisation's duties; performance report; post; post classification; post held by complainant; professional category; work appraisal;
Judgment 1807
86th session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATION 8
Extract:
THE ORGANISATION SUBMITS THAT THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY THE COMPLAINANT WAS A NEW CONTRACT, NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE OLD ONE, SINCE HIS STATUS HAD SHIFTED FROM "PAID ASSOCIATE" TO "INTERNATIONAL STAFF MEMBER". SO HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF ACQUIRED RIGHTS BESTOWED BY AN INTERNAL MEMORANDUM. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, "THE CONTRACT WHICH [THE COMPLAINANT] WAS OFFERED [...] AND WHICH HE SIGNED [IN OCTOBER 1995] WAS NOT HIS FIRST FIXED-TERM CONTRACT, SINCE HE HAD BEGUN AT THE [ORGANISATION] IN 1991 UNDER A FIXED-TERM ONE THAT IT HAD RENEWED MORE THAN ONCE. NOR WAS IT A NEW, INDEFINITE CONTRACT, SINCE [...] HIS LAST CONTRACT WAS A FIXED-TERM ONE FOR THREE YEARS. UNDER HIS EARLIER CONTRACTS HE WAS A STAFF MEMBER".
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint allowed; contract; extension; fixed-term; international civil servant; permanent; successive contracts;
Judgment 1806
86th session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 15, 16 AND 17
Extract:
THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PRACTICE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF NOT LETTING EMPLOYEES IN THE PERSONNEL UNIT HOLD OFFICE ON THE STAFF COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY RISK OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE DECISION TO OFFER THE COMPLAINANT A POST IN THE PERSONNEL UNIT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THE CONDITION OF RESIGNING AS PRESIDENT OF THE STAFF ASSOCIATION. "IT IS IMPORTANT BOTH TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION AND TO MAINTAIN A STAFF ASSOCIATION'S INDEPENDENCE."
Keywords:
complaint allowed in part; condition; freedom of association; offer; organisation's duties; post; practice; staff representative; staff union; staff union activity;
Judgment 1804
86th session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
CONSIDERATIONS 12, 13 AND 14
Extract:
THE PROMOTION OF MR [C.], PRESENTED AS THE FULFILMENT OF A PROMISE MADE TO HIM ON RECRUITMENT, GAVE RISE TO A DECISION ADOPTED ON 7 DECEMBER 1994. "ONLY THAT DECISION WAS NOTIFIED TO THE STAFF. SO THE COMPLAINANTS, WHO WERE UNAWARE OF THE PROMISE, WERE IN GOOD FAITH IN CHALLENGING THE PROMOTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS IN BREACH OF THE RULE IT ACTUALLY CITED. SO THEY WERE RIGHT IN SAYING THAT MR [C.] HAD BEEN PROMOTED TO A4 EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT FULLY QUALIFY UNDER THE [RELEVANT] RULES [...] BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH MR [C.] WAS PROMOTED THE COMPLAINANTS WERE ALSO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION: THE [ORGANIZATION] HAD ON THE FACE OF IT FAILED TO OBSERVE THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT BECAUSE IN PROMOTING MR [C.] IT DID NOT ABIDE BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS OR BY THE CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION TO WHICH THE COMPLAINANTS WERE THEMSELVES SUBJECT. THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE COMPLAINANTS DID SUFFER MORAL INJURY AND EACH OF THEM IS ENTITLED UNDER THAT HEAD TO AN AWARD OF".
Keywords:
appointment; breach; cause of action; complaint allowed in part; condition; damages; decision; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; grade; injury; moral injury; promise; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
< 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, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 | next >
|
