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

Good faith (193,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Good faith
Total judgments found: 184

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

  • Judgment 4298


    130th Session, 2020
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for compensation for a service-incurred disability.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [A]n organisation is entitled to adopt a position in relation to any claim of a staff member or former staff member for a benefit. If the organisation believes on reasonable grounds, that the benefit is unavailable, it is open to the organisation to resist the claim. But that is not a license to take all or any unreasonable point in doing so.

    Keywords:

    good faith;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    If, in truth, the OPCW had been uncertain about what the Tribunal’s orders in Judgment 3854 meant or had considered they deviated from the issue requiring determination, it could have sought the Tribunal’s assistance (see, for example, Judgment 3003, consideration 31). It did not do so. The OPCW, in advancing this submission, breached its duty to execute the Tribunal’s judgment in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3823, consideration 4). The complainant is entitled to compensation for this breach (see Judgment 2684, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3823, 3854

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith;



  • Judgment 4277


    130th Session, 2020
    International Bureau of Weights and Measures
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3538 (under 15), the power clearly vested in the competent authority to alter the pension scheme can be exercised lawfully if it represents a bona fide attempt to secure the pension scheme into the future and is based on what appears to be properly reasoned actuarial advice.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538

    Keywords:

    actuary; good faith; pension; sustainability;



  • Judgment 4253


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant takes issue with the Organization for having disclosed to certain representatives of Persian Gulf countries confidential emails that he had sent in 2009 to his superiors condemning current practices in those countries, which, he alleges, made him lose all credibility in the region and had adverse consequences for his reputation and professional opportunities after his retirement. The JAAB agreed that “such disclosure is neither appropriate nor acceptable, as it was probably detrimental to the dignity and the reputation of the complainant”, but it considered that the complainant was barred from presenting this argument in his harassment grievance.
    The disclosure of these confidential emails, which is not disputed by the Organization, constitutes a serious violation of the obligation of good faith and the duty of care. This plea is well founded.

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; duty of care; good faith;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of good faith implies that a promise must be fulfilled, subject to the condition that the promise should “be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow, that it should come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; that breach should cause injury to him or her who relies on it; and that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due” (see, for example, Judgments 782, consideration 1, 3005, consideration 12, 3115, consideration 5, 3148, consideration 7, and 3619, considerations 14 and 15). The ILO submits that the complainant does not “appear” to have suffered any real injury, since he waited for almost ten years to raise the issue. This objection cannot be upheld, as the existence of injury does not depend upon the time at which it is alleged. The promise to assign the complainant coordination duties satisfies the criteria established by the case law and should therefore have been fulfilled. The complainant rightly considers that the Organization violated the principle of good faith.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 782, 3005, 3115, 3148, 3619

    Keywords:

    good faith; promise;



  • Judgment 4230


    129th Session, 2020
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.

    Considerations 12-13

    Extract:

    The complaint is well founded. As recognized by the majority of the members of the Appeals Committee, the amendment to the proposed 55-month rule, that is, its immediate application rather than the originally proposed application, was “drastically different from the effects the originally proposed 55-month rule would have had”. Changing the proposal to provide for an immediate application resulted in a significant number of staff members holding a temporary appointment being affected. The majority of the members of the Appeals Committee observed that “[t]he measures taken by the Organization in the follow-up to the issuance of [the Circular], in particular the extensions of contracts until 31 July 2015 for those individuals who had already accumulated 55 months of aggregate service at the time of issuance of the [Circular], indicate[d] the type of effects and potential responses fully informed and open consultations on the amended 55-month rule could have anticipated”. The majority noted “that on 5 March 2015, the SMCC discussed the amended [...] 55-month rule. However, neither the [complainant] nor the Organization submit[ted] that these discussions were ‘consultations’, as required by Staff Rule 302.8.3”. The majority did not consider that the meeting of 5 March constituted a “proper and meaningful consultation”, and it noted also that the “UGSS, according to the SMCC summary record, had informed Management on 5 March 2015 that it ‘was not aware of how many temporary staff would be immediately affected by the new rule on the retroactive limitation of short-term employment to 55 months, and asked to receive the numbers of [the General Service staff] that would be touched and risk to be separated by the Organization’. This information, in the [majority’s] view, would indeed have been useful, in fact, it was crucial to assess the effects of the amended 55-month rule on existing short-term [...] staff [in the General Service category]. However the information was not made available.” The Tribunal finds these considerations to be correct.

    The Tribunal finds that by informing the staff representative bodies, at the 5 March meeting, of the decision to proceed with the introduction of the new Policy through the publication of the Circular on 6 March, the Organization was essentially presenting them with a fait accompli. Contrary to the Director-General’s view that the consultation process preceding the issuance of the Circular was appropriate, the Tribunal finds that it was insufficient, as a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the decision. In Judgment 380, under 21, the Tribunal stated: “Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. The object of negotiation on the other hand is compromise. This object would be frustrated if either party began with the determination not to make any concession in any circumstances, just as the object of consultation would be frustrated if the decision-maker began with a determination not to be influenced by anything that might be said to [her or] him. On both these hypotheses there would be a lack of good faith.”

    Keywords:

    consultation; good faith; staff representative;



  • Judgment 4222


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [I]t would be contrary to the principle of good faith, which required that the complainant should receive a timely reply, to considering her appeal as time-barred.

    Keywords:

    good faith; late appeal;



  • Judgment 4171


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Even though the charge of harassment cannot stand, an international organisation fails in its duty to treat staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury if the organisation is aware of an unhealthy working atmosphere in the service where a staff member works but allows it to remain without taking adequate measures to remedy the situation (see, to this effect, Judgment 2067, considerations 16 and 17).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; harassment; organisation's duties; patere legem; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 4146


    128th Session, 2019
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond nine years of service.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 3861, under 9, that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury, and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests. The Tribunal has also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisation’s interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgment 3193, under 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3193, 3861

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; good faith; misuse of authority;



  • Judgment 4093


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823

    Keywords:

    application for execution; good faith; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4092


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823

    Keywords:

    application for execution; good faith; res judicata;



  • Judgment 4072


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
    In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards his past performance, the complainant was unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of his evaluation referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor was he informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of his post, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with him. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that he did not meet the requirements in question, the complainant was not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that his consent was vitiated.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4071


    127th Session, 2019
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
    In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards their past performance, the complainants were unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of their evaluations referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor were the complainants informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of their posts, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with them. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that they did not meet the requirements in question, the complainants were not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that their consent was vitiated.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 3995


    126th Session, 2018
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, by virtue of the principle that an international organisation must provide its staff members with a safe and healthy working environment, it is liable for all injuries caused to a staff member by a supervisor when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to her or his dignity (see, for example, Judgments 1609, under 16, 1875, under 32, 2706, under 5, or 3170, under 33).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2706, 3170

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; patere legem; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 3986


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3887.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see Judgment 3823, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3823

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith;



  • Judgment 3903


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Considerations 6 and 17

    Extract:

    [I]n the circumstances as the complainant understood them to be, he did not request a review of the 16 June decision to terminate his appointment within the thirty-day time limit. Although the Tribunal has consistently stressed the requirement of strict adherence to the time limits with respect to the filing of an internal appeal, there are exceptions to this requirement. In Judgment 3687, consideration 10, the Tribunal stated: “The case law also recognizes that in very limited circumstances an exception may be made to the rule of strict adherence to the relevant time limit. The circumstances identified in the case law are: ‘where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time or where the organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her so as to do him or her harm, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith’ (see Judgment 3405, under 17; citations omitted); and ‘where some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or where [the staff member concerned by that decision] is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which he or she was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken’ (see Judgment 3140, under 4; citations omitted).”
    [...]
    The way in which the decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment was, in the letter, merged with the decision to abolish his position, the misleading content of the letter coupled with the vague and confusing language of the notification of the termination of the appointment was a breach of the ICC’s duty to act in good faith. In these circumstances, an exception to the rule of the strict adherence to the time limit for bringing an internal appeal challenging the decision provided for in Staff Rule 111.1(b) was correctly made by the Appeals Board. It follows that the complaint is receivable before the Tribunal.

    Keywords:

    exception; good faith; time limit;



  • Judgment 3861


    124th Session, 2017
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3024, under 12, the Tribunal recalled that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3024

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 3847


    124th Session, 2017
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In both complaints, the complainant contests the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The question whether the first complaint is receivable turns on whether, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article VII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the complainant filed it within the stipulated ninety days following the decision not to extend her contract. The principle of good faith dealings which applies to the relations between international civil servants and the organisations that employ them prevents a staff member from thwarting timely notification by her or his conduct. Accordingly, in considerations 11 and 12 of Judgment 2152 the Tribunal stated as follows [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2152

    Keywords:

    good faith; notification; time bar;



  • Judgment 3845


    124th Session, 2017
    African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently found that an organisation which employs staff members on a probationary basis must not only provide guidance, instructions and advice on carrying out duties; it must also set objectives for such staff members so that they know what criteria will be used to appraise their performance. It must, in good time and in clear language, inform a staff member of any aspects of her or his performance that are deemed unsatisfactory and warn her or him of the risk of dismissal after the probationary period so that both parties can take appropriate steps to remedy the situation sufficiently early. These requirements flow from the general principles applicable in international civil service law, in particular the principle of good faith, the duty of care and the employer’s duty to respect the dignity of its employees (see Judgments 3481, under 6 and 7, 3482, under 11, and 3678, under 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3481, 3482, 3678

    Keywords:

    duty of care; good faith; probationary period;



  • Judgment 3823


    124th Session, 2017
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3225.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Under Article VI, paragraph 1, second and third sentences, of the Statute of the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s judgments are final and without appeal, but it may consider applications for interpretation, execution or review of those judgments. As the case law has consistently stated (since Judgment 82, under 6), the Tribunal’s judgments are therefore immediately operative, a principle also stemming from their res judicata authority. International organisations that have recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are bound to take whatever action is required by a judgment, which must be executed as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 1887, under 8, 3003, under 12, 3152, under 11, and 3394, under 9). Furthermore, the parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments. Execution must occur within a reasonable period of time, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, especially the nature and the extent of the action which the organisation is required to take (see, for example, Judgments 2684, under 6, 3066, under 6, and 3656, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 82, 1887, 2684, 3003, 3066, 3152, 3394, 3656

    Keywords:

    execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury; res judicata;



  • Judgment 3647


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 4(b)

    Extract:

    [T]he fact that the real reason for the contested decision was initially concealed from the complainant misled him as to whether he had an interest in challenging it. Indeed, although the complainant presumably had no reason to object when he was informed that the selection process had been cancelled because of “organizational changes”, which, by their very nature, are made at the Director General’s discretion, this was plainly not the case when it became apparent that this decision was really designed to avoid the foreseeable outcome of the competition in which he had been shortlisted. The complainant was therefore unduly deprived of the opportunity to appeal against this decision within the normal time limit, in breach of the principle of good faith.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; good faith; time limit;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he principle of good faith, from which flow the requirement of mutual trust between an organisation and its staff and the requirement of fairness in appeals proceedings, in any case dictates that such an objection may not properly be raised at this stage of proceedings [in a surrejoinder].

    Keywords:

    good faith; surrejoinder;



  • Judgment 3566


    121st Session, 2016
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3239.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant, who has a duty to cooperate in good faith in the execution of the judgment in question, could not, as she did, refuse to provide the CDE with the information and supporting documents that she was asked to produce (see Judgment 2684, under 6).
    If she wished to challenge the validity of this request, she had only to lodge an application for interpretation of [the] Judgment [...] with the Tribunal, which she did not do either."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684

    Keywords:

    application for interpretation; execution of judgment; good faith;

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


 
Last updated: 28.10.2020 ^ top