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

Moral injury (50,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Moral injury
Total judgments found: 310

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >



  • Judgment 2851


    107th Session, 2009
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "It took [...] almost two and a half years before the complainant received the final decision impugned in her complaint. The internal appeal procedure was much too long and consequently the complainant was deprived of her right to a speedy resolution of her grievances (see Judgment 2196, under 9), for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages in the amount of 1,000 euros."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2196

    Keywords:

    compensation; delay; internal appeal; moral injury;



  • Judgment 2844


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

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170

    Keywords:

    amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;



  • Judgment 2841


    107th Session, 2009
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 9

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal is of the opinion that the complaint is irreceivable."
    "However, the Tribunal finds that the Organization failed to deal with the complainant's appeal in a timely and diligent manner. According to well established case law, '[s]ince compliance with internal appeal procedures is a condition precedent to access to the Tribunal, an organisation has a positive obligation to see to it that such procedures move forward with reasonable speed' (see Judgment 2197, under 33). In the present case, the internal appeal process lasted for approximately 18 months which is unacceptable in view of the simplicity of the appeal which hinged primarily on a question of receivability. The Tribunal therefore awards the complainant 1,500 euros in damages."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2197

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; delay; internal appeal; material damages; moral injury; organisation's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2839


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

    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;



  • Judgment 2829


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

    Considerations 3 and 5

    Extract:

    The complainant filed an appeal with the WIPO Appeal Board challenging the decision to suspend him from duty. The Board held that the appeal was irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule, inasmuch as it had already issued an opinion on the measure of suspension and no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter. The Director General also deemed the appeal irreceivable pursuant to the res judicata rule.
    The Tribunal considers that "[t]he res judicata rule applies to decisions of judicial bodies, but not to opinions or recommendations issued by administrative bodies. The Director General was therefore obviously wrong to cite this rule as the basis for declaring the internal appeal irreceivable on the grounds that the Appeal Board had already given an opinion on the suspension and that no new administrative decision had been taken on this matter."
    [...]
    "The Organization shall pay the complainant 3,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury which he suffered owing to the fact that the merits of his internal appeal were not examined."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; allowance; compensation; complaint allowed; executive head; general principle; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; res judicata; suspension;



  • Judgment 2820


    107th Session, 2009
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "Although the complaint must be dismissed as irreceivable, there was an inordinate delay in providing a reply to the appeal within the time limit provided in the Staff Rules or the time in which the Executive Director was supposed to reply. Had these time limits been observed, the matter would not have proceeded beyond the original complaint. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal sets at 1,000 euros [...]."

    Keywords:

    delay; internal appeal; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;



  • 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; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; 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 2751


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant represented three colleagues whose complaints to the Tribunal led to Judgment 2514. In its replies the Organisation had made defamatory statements on the complainant. "[T]he EPO [...] contends that the complaint is irreceivable to the extent of the claim for retraction of the defamatory statements. In this regard, it relies on Judgment 1635 where the Tribunal explained that it was not competent to order a written apology, as requested in that case. In Judgment 2720, also delivered this day, the Tribunal recognised, under 17, that publication of statements defamatory of a staff member by an international organisation gives rise to a continuous obligation to take steps to remedy, as far as possible, the harm done to the staff member's reputation. Moreover, the Tribunal held in that case that it could order performance of that obligation pursuant to Article VIII of its Statute. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it is beyond the competence of the Tribunal to order the retraction of a defamatory statement."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1635, 2514, 2720

    Keywords:

    apology; competence of tribunal; defamation; iloat statute; moral injury; order; receivability of the complaint; respect for dignity; staff representative;



  • Judgment 2744


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In the present case, over three years have elapsed between the filing of the complainant's appeal and the issuing of the Internal Appeals Committee's opinion. Moreover, two and a half years have elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the submission of the EPO's position paper before the Committee, which constitutes an excessive delay in the proceedings. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to 1,000 euros in moral damages."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; delay; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; period; procedure before the tribunal; publication; report; right;



  • Judgment 2698


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 13 and 14

    Extract:

    The complainant was notified of a number of serious charges against him and was informed that he would be suspended from duty with pay until the end of the investigation into the charges. "The Director General did not [...] implement the Appeal Board's recommendation that he should conclude with all due speed the investigation into the allegations of serious misconduct against the complainant and should take a decision within a reasonable time. In fact he did not conduct the investigation with the dispatch required by the Tribunal's case law and by the circumstances of the case, and he thus caused an unjustified delay in the handling of the case. The explanations given by the Organization in its submissions are irrelevant, particularly because they do not indicate that the completion of the investigation was delayed through any fault on the part of the complainant.
    By prolonging an essentially temporary measure beyond a reasonable time, without any valid grounds, thereby placing the complainant in a situation of uncertainty as to his further career, the Organization caused him moral injury which must be redressed by awarding him the amount of 10,000 United States dollars."

    Keywords:

    allowance; breach; career; case law; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision; delay; executive head; grounds; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; provisional measures; reasonable time; recommendation; serious misconduct; suspensive action;



  • Judgment 2645


    103rd Session, 2007
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant, in her appeal to the Director-General, the rejection of which prompted her to submit the matter to the Appeals Committee, merely requested that the disciplinary measure of suspension be revoked and that she be reinstated in the Organization. In her appeal she asked the Committee to rule that the penalties imposed on her were unlawful. It would therefore appear that during the internal proceedings she filed no specific claim for damages for an injury due to the sexual harassment she claimed to have suffered, although she dwelt at length on her allegations of sexual harassment and attributes the reprisals by her supervisor to her having reported them.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that any claim for damages for the injury that the complainant allegedly suffered as a result of sexual harassment constitutes an extension of the scope of the claims filed during the internal appeal proceedings and is therefore irreceivable pursuant to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal’s Statute inasmuch as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress (see, inter alia, Judgement 1380, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    moral injury; new plea; sexual harassment;



  • Judgment 2626


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5(a)

    Extract:

    "A decision to refuse to publish in an international organisation's in-house magazine the corrigendum of an article which, in the opinion of the staff member concerned, injures his personal interests may constitute a breach of that staff member's personal rights and an infringement of his freedom of expression. Insofar as such a decision in itself produces legal effects and infringes the rights of the staff member concerned, it constitutes an administrative act causing injury."

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; breach; cause of action; effect; freedom of speech; individual decision; injury; moral injury; organisation; publication; refusal; respect for dignity; right; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2558


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

    Consideration 4 (a)

    Extract:

    According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "It is for the Organisation to prove that whoever decides to extend an official's probationary period, or to dismiss the official, is authorised to take that decision, either by virtue of a statutory provision, or by virtue of a lawful delegation by the person in whom such authority is vested under that provision (see Judgment 2028, under 8, third paragraph, and 11). [...] In the absence of any formal delegation by the President, the Tribunal concludes that the complainant's plea that the decision to extend her probationary period was taken ultra vires is well founded. This flaw will not lead it to set aside the decision in question, but it does justify compensating the complainant for any moral injury the flaw may have caused her."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2028

    Keywords:

    allowance; burden of proof; competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; consequence; decision; decision quashed; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; iloat; lack of evidence; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 2553


    101st Session, 2006
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 5 and 6

    Extract:

    Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
    "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
    "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
    In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922

    Keywords:

    breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 2524


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

    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:

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

    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; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • 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 before the tribunal; 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:

    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 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 2480


    100th Session, 2006
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 2 and 4

    Extract:

    The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;



  • Judgment 2457


    99th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The Organisation contends that the claims for damages are irreceivable because they were put forward in this specific manner for the first time in the complaint. However, it appears from the submissions that the request concerning damages had in fact been made in the course of the internal appeal procedure, albeit only orally and in general terms. [...] The Tribunal therefore considers that, in accordance with the case law (see in particular Judgment 2360), the claims for damages are receivable."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2360

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; breach; case law; claim; complaint; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; evidence; formal requirements; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; material damages; moral injury; new claim; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; request by a party;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top