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

Terms of appointment

You searched for:
Keywords: Terms of appointment
Total judgments found: 1,714

< 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, 84, 85, 86 | next >



  • Judgment 1982


    89th Session, 2000
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5(A)

    Extract:

    "Precedent has it that, in the interests of the organisation, a chief executive may interrupt a competition, even in order to change the requirements of the post (see Judgment 1771, [...] under 4(e), and the judgments cited therein). He may even decide not to proceed to any appointment or promotion if he concludes that none of the candidates meets the specified requirements (see Judgment 1771, under4(c))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; discontinuance; organisation's interest;

    Consideration 5(D)

    Extract:

    The complainant was an unsuccessful candidate for a post. The initial competition for the post was cancelled and the complainant argues that the subsequent competition and selection procedure were flawed. Therefore he asks that the decision appointing another candidate be set aside. "The Tribunal's case law has it that it is not necessary to take up the whole procedure when it is easy to determine the point at which it began to be flawed."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; flaw; procedural flaw; rejected permanently; selection board;



  • Judgment 1981


    89th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was placed on leave without pay. Although she was included in a reduction-in-force exercise, she was not successful and she was paid damages in lieu of reinstatement. She argues that her termination indemnity should be recalculated to take into account the period of leave. "The issue is therefore whether service time continued to accrue. the answer is that it did not accrue, since the organization opted to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. As there was no reinstatement, service time did not occur."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; compensation; leave; reinstatement; separation from service; terminal entitlements; unpaid leave;



  • Judgment 1979


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "Consistent precedent holds that, since judgments carry the authority of res judicata only for the parties to a dispute (see Judgment 1935 [...]), complainants may not put forward claims for the whole staff, but only for themselves. The complaints are irreceivable insofar as they address the position of persons who are not parties to this suit."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1935

    Keywords:

    binding character; case law; claim; general principle; insurance benefit; judgment; locus standi; receivability; request; res judicata; same parties;



  • Judgment 1977


    89th Session, 2000
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The complainant asserts that the Ad Hoc Panel failed to give reasons for its opinion because it did not give a reasoned reply to his assertion that it had been improperly constituted. The argument is ill conceived. The obligation of a disciplinary body to give reasons for its opinions is limited to the disciplinary matters remitted to it. The reason is so that the person subjected to a disciplinary measure may know why a penalty is being imposed upon him and may, if he thinks appropriate, appeal against the decision. But an administrative body, such as the Ad Hoc Panel, has no power and hence no obligation to decide in any definitive way upon its own remit. Of course, it must listen attentively to any objections that are made to the effect that it is exceeding or is about to exceed its powers and must take a position on such objections by either continuing to act or changing its course of action. But in the final analysis, the decision as to whether such a body is acting within its powers or beyond them must lie elsewhere and a person in the complainant's position suffers no prejudice from its failure to give reasons for declining to accede to his objections."

    Keywords:

    advisory body; composition; disciplinary procedure; duty to substantiate decision; misconduct; misuse of authority; purpose; report; serious misconduct;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763

    Keywords:

    admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; flaw; inquiry; safeguard;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The complainant's contention that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence is wholly without merit. He defrauded his employer of substantial sums of money in circumstances that left no room for doubt that he both knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong. When his actions came under suspicion, he falsified documents in an attempt to justify himself. His actions fell far below the standards expected of any employee let alone the high standards required of an international civil servant. the penalty of dismissal was amply warranted."

    Keywords:

    conduct; disciplinary measure; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; misrepresentation; proportionality; serious misconduct; termination;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "The complainant on several occasions filed claims and received reimbursement for duty travel in business class while he had in fact travelled in economy class, pocketing the difference. [...] There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that this fraud was condoned or approved by the Agency and [...] his suggestion that his fraudulent practice was widespread amongst other Agency personnel, which is likewise not supported by any evidence at all, is wholly irrelevant: even if all the Agency's officers had been defrauding it in the same manner as the complainant, that would constitute no excuse for him. Where several persons commit the same crime, the guilt of one is not lessened by that of the others."

    Keywords:

    conduct; evidence; fitness for international civil service; misconduct; official travel; practice; serious misconduct; travel expenses;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The complainant refused to avail himself of his right to respond to allegations during the internal investigations of his serious misconduct. "In these circumstances, the complainant's request for a hearing is manifestly unjustified. The complainant has offered no evidence at any stage of the proceedings against him, therefore, such a hearing could not possibly add anything to the record before the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    evidence; misconduct; oral proceedings; refusal; right; right to reply; serious misconduct;



  • Judgment 1976


    89th Session, 2000
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant, who holds a post in the general service category, requested a job description "in line with current tasks being carried out [...] at the professional level". The Tribunal considers that "as regards her request that her current tasks be classified at the professional level, this is not within the competence of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no power to direct that a particular job be classified at the professional level."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; general service category; post classification; post description; professional category;



  • 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; serious misconduct; termination;



  • Judgment 1973


    89th Session, 2000
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal has always held that personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. The granting of personal promotion is a discretionary decision which, as firm precedent has it, is subject to only limited review and will stand unless it shows a fatal flaw. In a case such as the present one, in which the general rules regarding personal promotions have been adopted and communicated to the staff, the appointing authority is bound by these rules and the Tribunal will consider any violation of them to be a fatal flaw."

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; limits; patere legem; personal promotion; promotion;



  • Judgment 1972


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

    Considerations 3 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant, a director of a department, was made aware of two e-mails which were written in highly indecorous terms and, although private, commented on the running of the department. The Staff Union Committee protested against what it considered to be an invasion of privacy. The complainant did not respect the order to use discretion issued by the Director of Personnel. The Director-General, considering the complainant incapable in his function as Director of a department to maintain a stable and productive working environment, transferred him to a post of special advisor. "As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1018 [...], it is the duty of the head of any international organisation to take whatever measures can reduce tensions among his staff, and a transfer in the interests of the service may be an appropriate way of settling a conflictual situation. [...] However, since it cannot be regarded as disciplinary, the measure must, as the case law prescribes, heed the staff member's dignity and good name and not cause him undue suffering. Clearly, in this case the complainant was bound to view the measure as downgrading him. However, the fact that the organization was at pains to find him an assignment in keeping with his competence if not his wishes, to maintain his grade and to exercise the utmost discretion in dealing with the matter, shows that everything was done to protect his dignity as a senior official."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1018

    Keywords:

    conduct; discretion; downgrading; executive head; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's interest; respect for dignity; transfer; working relations;



  • Judgment 1970


    89th Session, 2000
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "A complainant cannot sit back and do nothing when an appeal is lodged. He must pursue the appeal diligently. Only then can he claim that delay is unreasonable. In the present case, the complainant failed to exhaust the means of internal appeal because he did not pursue his appeal diligently; therefore, he does not qualify to bring a direct appeal to the Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; reasonable time; receivability; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 1968


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 17 and 18

    Extract:

    "In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; discretion; exception; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; refusal;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."

    Keywords:

    career; cause of action; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability;



  • Judgment 1964


    89th Session, 2000
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "It is within the competence of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a contract of appointment by which the parties are bound and which would entitle the official covered by the contract to the rights enjoyed by the officials of an organisation that has recognised the Tribunal's jurisdiction. However, in the material case, the [organisation's] agreement to appoint the complainant was subject to the fulfilment of a condition which cannot be said to be a mere formality, namely, recognition that he was physically fit enough to discharge his functions. [...] Consequently, the complainant, who has never been an employee of the [organisation], is raising a matter which is not within the scope of the Tribunal's competence."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; complainant; complaint; condition; contract; international civil servant; locus standi; medical examination; offer; offer withdrawn; receivability; status of complainant; tribunal;



  • Judgment 1961


    89th Session, 2000
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that "in Judgment 139 [...] the Tribunal made it clear that it did not consider the assignment of the duties of an abolished post to other staff members as an indication that there had been an abuse of authority, provided that the evidence showed that the number of staff members was in fact reduced." It affirms this case law.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 139

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; case law; condition; evidence; misuse of authority; staff reduction;



  • Judgment 1955


    89th Session, 2000
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Summary

    Extract:

    According to Annex IV, Article 27, first paragraph, of the General Conditions of Employment governing servants at Eurocontrol, the divorced wife of a servant or former servant of Eurocontrol can only claim a survivor's pension if, at the date of former husband's death, she can justify her entitlement to receive monthly maintenance payments. In the present case, the complainant agreed to a lump-sum payment from her former husband in full and final settlement of his obligation to pay maintenance. Therefore, she cannot claim a survivor's pension.

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ANNEX IV, ARTICLE 27 OF THE EUROCONTROL GENERAL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

    Keywords:

    condition; lump-sum; pension; pension entitlements; staff regulations and rules; survivor's benefit;



  • Judgment 1954


    89th Session, 2000
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant unsuccessfully applied for a new post. She maintains that the candidate selected for the post had been considered as an internal candidate during the selection process, when in fact she was an external candidate. "The correct interpretation of Staff Regulation 4.4 is that persons already in the service of the organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be equal to those of other candidates (see Judgment 107). Since the complainant was found not to be as well qualified as Ms P., she cannot rely on Regulation 4.4. "

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF REGULATION 4.4
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 107

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; internal candidate; priority; selection board; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 1950


    89th Session, 2000
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "So long as the complainant retains his residence in Germany, no matter how many other residences he may have established, he has not carried out a removal from that residence. A removal is not merely the establishment of a new residence but, and much more importantly, the abandonment of the former residence."

    Keywords:

    condition; removal expenses; residence; separation from service;



  • Judgment 1940


    88th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Insofar as the complainant is seeking to obtain a judgment from the Tribunal on the extent of his pension rights, it is clear that the decisions taken by the pension fund lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and cannot be reviewed by this Tribunal."

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; iloat; pension; unat; unjspf;



  • Judgment 1938


    88th Session, 2000
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant worked continuously for the organization for 17 years under various short term contracts - including contractual service agreements - after his fixed-term appointment as a staff member expired. "In practice he is seeking to obtain a revision of the whole of his career from 1976 to 1996. But he himself accepted the contractual conditions offered to him. He did not challenge the decision taken in 1979 not to renew his fixed-term appointment and not to convert it into a permanent appointment. Moreover, he offers no legally valid argument to challenge the way he has been treated since 1979. His claims must therefore be dismissed [...]."

    Keywords:

    complainant; contract; duration of appointment; external collaborator; fixed-term; locus standi; project personnel;



  • Judgment 1934


    88th Session, 2000
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant was offered an exceptional separation package on the condition that he not appeal his separation and/or its terms and conditions. He accepted the same day. "There is no evidence that these commitments - which the complainant now appears to regret - were tainted by a fraudulent attitude or pressure from the [organisation]. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement that he made with the organisation, some of which were very favourable, and he cannot challenge them now."

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; agreed termination; good faith; settlement out of court; terminal entitlements; termination; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 1929


    88th Session, 2000
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "Compulsory transfer of a disciplinary nature must afford the staff member the safeguards available in the case of disciplinary sanctions, that is the right of the staff member to be heard before the sanction is ordered, with the option for him to participate in the full processing of the evidence and to make all his pleas. [...] It matters little in this respect whether or not transfer is envisaged among the disciplinary sanctions set out in the Staff Regulations. What is decisive is whether the transfer appears to be the consequence of the alleged professional shortcomings of the staff member which may, by their nature, give rise to disciplinary sanctions."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; right to reply; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant was transferred without prior notice and without an opportunity to be heard. "Taken together, the material circumstances give grounds for considering that the impugned transfer partly constituted a hidden disciplinary sanction. [...] The impugned decision must, therefore, be set aside and the procedure resumed from the point at which it was flawed [...]."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 10 OF THE UPU STAFF REGULATIONS

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; disciplinary measure; hidden disciplinary measure; organisation's duties; remand; right to reply; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer;



  • Judgment 1927


    88th Session, 2000
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "In practice, while suspension is indeed an essentially interim measure which maintains the rights of the staff member concerned, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 353 [...], it is nevertheless a decision which causes injury to the person concerned."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 353

    Keywords:

    case law; disciplinary procedure; injury; misconduct; safeguard; staff member's interest; suspension;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "While the complaint may seem to show no cause of action, since the decision to suspend him has been revoked, the measure did have material - although not financial - and particularly moral consequences during the period for which it was in effect. Certain of the complainant's duties were withdrawn, although he continued to receive full pay. In these conditions, the complaint does still show cause for action [...]."

    Keywords:

    cause of action; consequence; decision; injury; material injury; moral injury; receivability; suspension; withdrawal of decision;

< 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, 84, 85, 86 | next >


 
Last updated: 17.09.2014 ^ top