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

Executive head (549,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Executive head
Total judgments found: 204

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • Judgment 4139


    128th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he fact, also relied on by the defendant, that the Executive Director had dismissed the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the Head of the Human Resources Department – which he could only have done by disavowing the latter and putting the organization in a delicate position – did not imply that he would necessarily have taken the same initial decision that she had.

    Keywords:

    delegated authority; executive head; internal appeal;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Although neither these provisions nor the other rules governing the staff of the Global Fund clearly specify the authority competent to decide, prior to such a termination of contract, to abolish a post with the likelihood that a termination will ensue, it is clear that this authority can only be, in accordance with the case law cited above, the Executive Director himself, by virtue of the general authority conferred upon him as the executive head of the organization.

    Keywords:

    decision-maker; executive head;



  • Judgment 4089


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has said of the power to extend an appointment beyond retirement age (in relation to the IAEA) that “the decision whether or not to grant [such] an extension to any particular staff member is peculiarly a matter for the exercise of the Director General’s discretion. The Tribunal will only interfere with such exercise on very limited grounds” (see Judgment 2377, consideration 4) and, in the context of another organisation, that “[s]ince the career of a member of staff normally ends automatically when that person reaches retirement age, any such prolongation is, by definition, an exceptional measure” (see Judgment 3285, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2377, 3285

    Keywords:

    age limit; competence of tribunal; discretion; executive head; extension; judicial review; retirement;



  • Judgment 4084


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that, contrary to Staff Regulation 4.3(a), her transfer was not in the best interest of WIPO and that no consideration was given to her interests. The Tribunal has consistently stated that what is in the interest of an organization should be left to the organization to decide (see Judgment 2105, under 17) and that greater caution must be shown before interfering with such decisions because the executive head must ordinarily be deemed to be the best judge of what the interests of the organization are (see Judgment 1050, under 4, and Judgment 3193, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1050, 2105, 3193

    Keywords:

    executive head; organisation's interest;



  • Judgment 4062


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organization, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, or 3830, considerations 6 and 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; executive head; impugned decision; motivation;



  • Judgment 3312


    117th Session, 2014
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The disciplinary sanction taken by the Executive Head departing from the recommendation of a disciplinary board is cancelled for lack of sufficient reasons.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2495, under 9(b), the Tribunal held that in taking a decision at the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, an Executive Head, such as the Registrar, is not bound by the recommendations of a disciplinary board. The Registrar may depart from them if another solution is considered to be more appropriate to ensure the satisfactory running of the Organization. The Tribunal will not substitute its assessment for that of the Registrar, unless it notes a clear disproportion between the gravity of the offence committed and the severity of the penalty imposed by the Registrar. However, a Registrar who departs from a recommendation of a board, as in this case, must state the reasons for disregarding it. One purpose which is served by this requirement to give reasons is to enable the Tribunal to evaluate whether the decision is proportionate in the event that the decision is challenged in the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2391, under 8). In this case, the Registrar motivated her decision for departing from the recommendation of the DAB, but gave insufficiently cogent reasons for issuing the reprimand and warnings to the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2391, 2495

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; disciplinary procedure; executive head;



  • Judgment 3214


    115th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "[A] provision [...], which grants the executive head of an organisation the power to propose that another organ adopt a decision, authorises that person to refrain from making such a proposal if he or she sees no reason for it (see Judgment 585, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 585

    Keywords:

    decision; discretion; executive head; proposal; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3208


    115th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042

    Keywords:

    bias; case law; complaint allowed; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3193


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2803, under 8, the Tribunal observed that “according to a long line of precedent going back to Judgment 476, in order for there to be misuse of authority it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the Organization’s interests”. Additionally, the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see Judgment 2104, under 8). It is also equally well established that the executive head of the organisation will generally be regarded as the best judge of what is in the organisation’s interests and the Tribunal will not normally interfere with that assessment. However, it is not sufficient to claim that a decision was taken in the interests of the organisation. The grounds upon which that conclusion is made must be clear to permit the Tribunal to exercise its power of review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2803

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; purpose;



  • Judgment 3191


    114th Session, 2013
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; decision quashed; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 3177


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to refuse to promote him to grade P-5.

    Considerations 11 and 12

    Extract:

    "The complainant alleges first that the Director-General did not properly delegate the authority to make the final decision at issue. The impugned decision was signed by the Director ad interim of HRM and not the Director-General.
    This is not a question of delegation of authority. Contrary to the complainant’s arguments, the authorised decision-maker does not have to be the signatory to the final decision. In Judgment 2028, relied on by the complainant, the decision was flawed because no evidence was adduced that the person with authority had actually made the decision or properly delegated it (see Judgment 2028, under 8(3)). It is not a matter of who signed the decision, but rather who made the decision itself."

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; decision-maker; delegated authority; executive head; general principle;



  • Judgment 3166


    114th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.

    Considerations 18 and 19

    Extract:

    "[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
    The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071

    Keywords:

    advisory body; claim; compensation; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material damages; moral damages; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3164


    114th Session, 2013
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of her request for a transfer, alleging harassment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[B]y merely stating that he accepted the [Joint Advisory Appeals] Board’s recommendations without specifying the practical steps to be taken in order to implement them, the Director-General issued a fundamentally flawed decision the execution of which was bound to be problematic."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; complaint allowed in part; decision; executive head; flaw; internal appeals body; recommendation;



  • Judgment 3149


    113th Session, 2012
    Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    executive head; harassment; non-renewal of contract;



  • Judgment 3130


    113th Session, 2012
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; claim; compensation; complaint allowed in part; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; international civil servant; material damages; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;



  • Judgment 3106


    113th Session, 2012
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The principle of freedom of association "precludes interference by an organisation in the affairs of its staff union or the organs of its staff union (see Judgment 2100, under 15). A staff union must be free to conduct its own affairs, to regulate its own activities and, also, to regulate the conduct of its members in relation to those affairs and activities. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[t]here could be no true freedom of association if the disapproval of the Director General, whether justified or not, of what was said [in an open letter issued in connection with a staff union referendum] could lead to disciplinary measures”. Further, an organisation must remain neutral when differences of opinion emerge within a staff union: it must not favour one group or one point of view over another. To do so would be to diminish the right of a staff union to conduct its own affairs and to regulate its own activities. Nor does an organisation have any legitimate interest in the actions of staff members in their dealings with their staff union and/or other staff union members with respect to the affairs and activities of the union. Thus, it was said in Judgment 274, under 22, that “[a] staff member’s conduct of [his] private life is not the concern of the Director-General [unless it] brings the Organization into disrepute”, and that trade union activities “likewise constitute an area that is ‘prima facie’ outside the Director- General’s jurisdiction”, although “there may be exceptional cases”."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 274, 2100

    Keywords:

    breach; competence; complaint allowed in part; conduct; difference; disciplinary measure; executive head; freedom of association; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; outside activity; right; staff union; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 3084


    112th Session, 2012
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834

    Keywords:

    breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 3064


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; complaint allowed; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;



  • Judgment 3035


    111th Session, 2011
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    The complainant was suspended from duty on 4 September 2008.
    "The Tribunal finds that, in maintaining the complainant's suspension by his decision of 6 July 2009, the Director General extended the duration of this suspension beyond the reasonable limit accepted by the case law and thus caused the complainant moral and professional injury."

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; cause; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; date; executive head; extension; injury; moral injury; professional injury; reasonable time; suspension;



  • Judgment 3010


    111th Session, 2011
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
    "[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, 'to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head'".

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352

    Keywords:

    advisory body; condition; contract; decision; executive head; provision; purpose; recommendation; termination;



  • Judgment 2944


    109th Session, 2010
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to firm precedent, international civil servants do not have a right to promotion (see, for example, Judgments 1207, under 8, or 2006, under 12) and [...] decisions in this domain, which are taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation, are subject to only limited judicial review (see, for example, Judgments 1670, under 14, or 2221, under 9)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1207, 1670, 2006, 2221

    Keywords:

    case law; decision; discretion; executive head; international civil servant; judicial review; limits; promotion; right;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.11.2019 ^ top