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

Bias (572,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Bias
Total judgments found: 107

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

  • Judgment 4170


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in CAP 403 in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, and the Appeals Board noted that the complainant “makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”. However, the Appeals Board failed to respond to these allegations, perhaps considering the flaws that it had identified sufficient to substantiate its recommendations. The Appeals Board did not therefore ascertain whether the complainant’s unfavourable performance rating and the non-renewal of her appointment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Board’s Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.

    Keywords:

    bias; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4097


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing bias or personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 4010


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of establishing bias and has failed to do so (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3960


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision in which the Administrative Council decided to further maintain his suspension while reducing his salary by half until a final decision had been made in his case.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In this case, concurring with Judgment 3958, the ratio decidendi is the following: as it might reasonably be thought that the President was directly, specifically and individually offended by the misconduct for which the complainant was charged, he could not take part in any individual proceedings regarding the allegedly identified author of the alleged misconduct. The President’s participation in these proceedings has given rise to the unlawfulness of the individual decisions impugned with the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958

    Keywords:

    bias; conflict of interest; decision quashed;



  • Judgment 3958


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    In the present case, there is a conflict of interest on the part of the President. It stems from the fact that the alleged serious misconduct, with which the complainant was charged, might reasonably be thought to have offended the President specifically, directly and individually. This situation, by itself, casts doubts on the President’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the President would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. The argument raised by the President in his opinion to the Council (CA/C 6/15) [...], namely that pursuant to the applicable rules the President was acting within his competence and had the power and duty to take all necessary steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the Office, is immaterial. The question of a conflict of interest only arises if the official is competent. Accordingly, the question of competency is not an answer to a charge of a conflict of interest. Hence, the Administrative Council erred in not finding that the President had a conflict of interest in the matter. In this situation, in accordance with the provisions in force, the Administrative Council should have sent the matter back to the next most senior official to exercise authority instead of the President, who was precluded from exercising authority because of his conflict of interest (see Judgement 2892, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892

    Keywords:

    bias; conflict of interest;



  • Judgment 3927


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that the Director General was biased against her and that his decision to suspend her was vitiated by malice against her for her role as a staff representative. These allegations are unfounded. She has not provided any persuasive evidence to substantiate them, whereas the consistent case law of the Tribunal requires that such allegations be proved, since bias and bad faith cannot be presumed (see Judgments 3886, consideration 8, and 3738, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 3886

    Keywords:

    bad faith; bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 1775, consideration 7:
    “Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; evidence;



  • Judgment 3501


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Deputy Director of WIPO’s Communications Division.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    bias; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;



  • Judgment 3500


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Head of the Executive Education Program.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    bias; discretion; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;



  • Judgment 3422


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [The complainant submits that] the composition of the selection panel was flawed. One member of the panel was a person who had been two levels below him in the administrative hierarchy and the complainant had sided with this person’s first level supervisor in not increasing her performance rating. She was thus, the complainant submits, “in a conflicted position”. The complainant also points to the fact that the majority of the members of the selection panel were more junior than him and not able to effectively evaluate his qualifications, experience and performance. Also, changes were made to the recruitment panel which he had not been afforded the opportunity to challenge. Several other specific complaints were made by the complainant about the selection process. However what the complainant singularly fails to do is demonstrate that it is probable some or a number of members
    of the selection panel were biased against him or that the panel or selection process was otherwise flawed.

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; composition; flaw; selection board;



  • Judgment 3380


    118th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post following a competition and alleges perpetual administrative bias towards him.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgment 2472, under 9). It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472

    Keywords:

    bias;



  • 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 3184


    114th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him without pay, alleging that it was taken in breach of the rule against double jeopardy.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires that “the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3156


    114th Session, 2013
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants, who are former staff representatives, unsuccessfully challenge decisions which, in their view, constituted violations of the right of staff representation.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    "Since organisations must prevent [any] abuse of the right of free speech [enjoyed by bodies representing the staff], the Tribunal’s case law does not absolutely prohibit the putting in place of a mechanism for the prior authorisation of messages circulated by [such] bodies [...]. An organisation acts unlawfully only if the conditions for implementing this mechanism in practice lead to a breach of that right, for example by an unjustified refusal to circulate a particular message."

    Keywords:

    bias; breach; collective rights; condition; facilities; flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; organisation's interest; refusal; right; staff representative; staff union;



  • Judgment 2996


    110th Session, 2011
    European Molecular Biology Laboratory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 15 and 16

    Extract:

    "While generally speaking there is no reason why an advisory body on medical questions should not comprise the same members when it has to give a series of opinions on developments in the condition of the same official, that is not the case where it is required to give a second opinion on the same request of that person, as occurred here. [...] As the Tribunal found in [...] Judgments 179 and 2671, the rule that members of an advisory body must not examine a case on which they have previously expressed a view applies even in the absence of an express text, since its purpose is to protect officials against arbitrary action."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 2671

    Keywords:

    advisory body; bias; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; composition; exception; international civil servant; medical board; medical opinion; no provision; organisation's duties; purpose; request by a party; safeguard; same;



  • Judgment 2930


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In his internal appeal the complainant claimed in particular that he had been the victim of bullying on the part of his director, who was also his reporting officer. [...] The Internal Appeals Committee [...] found that the inaccuracies it identified [in the staff report] did not, individually, constitute an 'abuse of authority' and concluded that the 'report [did] not reveal any flaws which would justify its complete retraction'. This approach involved an error of law. It was not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it was necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer."

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; evidence; formal flaw; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; performance report; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2917


    109th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The signing of a document with such important implications for the future career of a staff member is not a mere formality, and insistence on absolute compliance with this rule cannot be dismissed as an unduly formalistic approach. The provision requiring that the appraisal form be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by other persons [...] is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member's skills and performance."

    Keywords:

    bias; complaint allowed; formal flaw; formal requirements; organisation's duties; performance report; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2892


    108th Session, 2010
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "The first argument advanced by the complainant in relation to the decision to suspend him from duty is that the Deputy Secretary-General had no authority to take such a decision but, rather, as the Secretary-General was an interested party, the question of suspension should have been referred to the ITU Council [...]. It is correct that it was incumbent on the Secretary-General to refrain from taking any decision concerning the incidents that occurred in his office [...]. As stated in Judgment 179, "his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds". Although Staff Rule 10.1.3 refers only to suspension by the Secretary-General, the doctrine of necessity allows that, where there is a conflict of interest, authority is to be granted to some other appropriate person. However, that does not mean that the question should have been referred to the Council. That body has certain powers with respect to elected officials, but not with respect to unelected officials. As an elected official and as the next most senior official, the Deputy Secretary-General was the appropriate person to exercise authority with respect to the incidents that occurred [...], even if the relevant provision did not so provide."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 179

    Keywords:

    bias; challenge of member; competence; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; executive body; no provision;



  • Judgment 2879


    108th Session, 2010
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The complainant was charged with misconduct in relation to the publication of an article which reflected badly on WIPO, WIPO's Director General and her former supervisors. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on her, including relegation and a ban on promotion for a consecutive period of three years. She challenged the imposition of sanctions, denying any responsibility for the publication of the article and arguing that they were tailored to specifically delay her promotion, which the Tribunal had ordered in Judgment 2706. The Tribunal found that the evidence fell far short of establishing the complainant's responsibility.
    "The determinative issue in this complaint centres on the finding that the complainant was responsible for the publication of the article. It is well established that the individual accused of wrongdoing is presumed to be innocent. It is equally well established that the accuser bears the burden of proof. WIPO does not deny that it bears the burden of proof but submits that the standard of proof is "precise and concurring presumptions". The Tribunal does not accept this submission. In Judgment 2786, under 9, it held that in the case of misconduct the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786

    Keywords:

    benefit of doubt; bias; burden of proof; evidence; liability; misconduct; presumption;



  • Judgment 2869


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "[I]t is not enough that the decision may be reasonable and in good faith; it must also appear to be reasonable and in good faith. [...] [A]ll decisions regarding the promotion or non-promotion of staff union representatives must be, and must appear to be, made impartially so as to avoid any hint of preference or prejudice."

    Keywords:

    bias; discretion; equal treatment; good faith; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; respect for dignity; staff representative; staff union activity;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 19.09.2019 ^ top