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

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



  • Judgment 2935


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

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "The complainant claims punitive damages. This claim may be summarily dismissed because it is tantamount to asking the Tribunal to make an example of the Organisation by obliging it to pay compensation exceeding the material and moral injury actually suffered by the complainant. Such a claim may be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation's conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith."

    Keywords:

    breach; compensation; good faith; material damages;



  • Judgment 2916


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

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[W]here the ground for non-renewal is unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation concerned [...]. However, an organisation may not in good faith end someone's appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1262, 1583, 2414

    Keywords:

    case law; contract; discretion; fixed-term; good faith; grounds; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; performance report; staff regulations and rules; tribunal; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2907


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law as established in Judgments 752, under 4, and 2821, under 9, for example, exceptions may be made to the applicable time limits when an organisation, by misleading the complainant or concealing some paper from him or her, has deprived that person of the possibility of exercising his or her right of appeal, in breach of the principle of good faith."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 752, 2821

    Keywords:

    good faith; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • Judgment 2906


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Although [...] the decision [to promote the complaintant to grade A5] did not create any rights because it stemmed from a factual error, it could be reversed only on certain conditions dictated by the principle of good faith. This principle requires, firstly, that the power to reverse a decision resting on a factual error must be exercised as soon as the competent authority notices the error in question and not at a later date chosen at its own convenience. Secondly, this principle requires that if the person concerned by a decision resting on a factual error has not contributed to this error, he or she must not suffer any unfavourable consequences from the application of the decision in question during the period before it was reversed. In particular, it is thus essential that any remuneration received by the official concerned on the basis of this decision should not give rise to reimbursement or any other form of restitution."

    Keywords:

    condition; consequence; decision; good faith; individual decision; mistake of fact; promotion; right; staff member's interest;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "In accordance with these principles, an individual decision affecting an official becomes binding on the organisation which has taken it and thus creates rights for the person concerned as soon as it has been notified to him or her in the manner prescribed by the applicable rules (see, for example, Judgments 2112, under 7(a), and 2201, under 4). As a general rule, such a decision may therefore be reversed only if two conditions are satisfied: the decision must be unlawful and it must not yet have become final (see Judgments 994, under 14, or 1006, under 2). Furthermore, where an individual decision does not create rights, provided that the principle of good faith is respected, it may be reversed at any time (see Judgment 587, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 587, 994, 1006, 2112, 2201

    Keywords:

    applicable law; binding character; condition; decision; good faith; individual decision; promotion; right;



  • Judgment 2901


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

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law [...] allow[s] a complaint against an implied rejection to be deemed receivable, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit for filing a complaint, if a particular step taken by an organisation, such as sending a dilatory reply to the complainant, might give that person good reason to infer that his or her claim is still under consideration (see Judgment 941, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 941

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; late appeal; late filing; receivability of the complaint; time bar; time limit;



  • Judgment 2899


    108th Session, 2010
    European Free Trade Association
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "[T]he Tribunal's case law has it that an international organisation which has mistakenly overpaid an official must take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment of the sum in question - at least the full amount thereof. Relevant circumstances include the good or bad faith of the staff member, the sort of mistake made, the respective responsibilities of the organisation and the person concerned for the causes of the mistake and the inconvenience to which the staff member would be put by repayment that is required as a result of the organisation's oversight (see Judgments 1111, under 2, and 1849, under 16 and 18)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1111, 1849

    Keywords:

    case law; cause; condition; consequence; equity; good faith; liability; mistake of fact; official; organisation; organisation's duties; recovery of overpayment; refund; request by a party;



  • Judgment 2882


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

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832

    Keywords:

    breach; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2878


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The complainant asks the Tribunal to quash the decision dismissing his appeal as irreceivable. He submits in particular that Staff Rule 212.02 is not applicable in his case because he was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Organization and therefore the deadline should have been suspended. He also submits that there was a breach of the principles of good faith, of legitimate expectation, of the duty of care and of respect for dignity.
    "[T]here was no reason why the complainant could not submit his request for review within the 60-day time limit provided for in Staff Rule 212.02, and withdraw it later if necessary. The Joint Appeals Board was correct in recommending that his appeal be dismissed as time-barred. So far as concerns the applicable time limits, there was no breach of the principles of good faith, legitimate expectation, respect for dignity, or duty of care. The complainant refers to Judgment 2584 [...]. However, [...] in the present case there was only one official communication from the Organization to the complainant between the date of the letter notifying him of the decision not to further extend his contract [...] and the date of his letter requesting the Director-General to review that decision [...]. This cannot be construed, as claimed by the complainant, as an initiation of settlement negotiations which could have suspended the time limit for submission of a request to review the decision."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2584, 2841

    Keywords:

    breach; collective bargaining; delay; duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; proposal; respect for dignity; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; time limit;



  • 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;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "The Centre argues that the complainant accepted the terms of the renewal for six months and is now precluded from challenging them. In effect, it argues that the complainant has waived his right to challenge the validity of the renewal. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 592 [...] "[w]aiver of a right to bring an action may not be presumed". As well, "[w]aiver is binding only if it is express or clearly implied on the facts". In the present case, the complainant contested the validity of the impugned decision [...] and at no time did he formally waive his right to challenge the validity of the decision. He was also in a financially vulnerable position, faced with the prospect of unemployment if he did not accept the renewal of his contract. As well, he would have potentially left himself in a situation of not having the advantages accorded to an internal candidate in a subsequent competition for a vacant post. In these circumstances, in addition to there being no evidence of an express waiver, a waiver cannot be implied on the facts."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 592

    Keywords:

    acceptance; extension of contract; fixed-term; good faith; non-renewal of contract; waiver of right of appeal;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."

    Keywords:

    administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;



  • Judgment 2861


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

    Consideration 83

    Extract:

    "A decision not to renew a contract is a discretionary decision that can be reviewed only on limited grounds. Those grounds include that the decision is tainted by procedural irregularities, is based on incorrect facts or essential facts have not been taken into consideration or clearly false conclusions have been drawn from the facts. The complainant argues that the decision of 25 October 2006 should be set aside on the ground that it is a disguised disciplinary measure. It is clear from the terms of the letter of 25 October 2006 [...] that that decision was taken on the basis of what was considered to be misconduct. So much is confirmed by the complainant's subsequent summary dismissal based on the warning of 25 October 2006 [...]. However, in Judgment 1405, the Tribunal stated that '[s]ince disciplinary proceedings are irrelevant to non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment the complainant may not properly allege hidden disciplinary action'. Even so, where nonrenewal is based on misconduct, that misconduct must be proved. And if the decision has not been preceded by disciplinary proceedings, the obligation of good faith requires that an organisation at least give the staff member concerned the opportunity to answer the matters levelled against him or her. Indeed, unless that opportunity is given, the organisation will be at risk of proceeding on incorrect facts or without regard to essential facts or of drawing false conclusions."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1405

    Keywords:

    decision; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence; good faith; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; remand;

    Consideration 37

    Extract:

    "It is not possible to characterise administrative decisions as harassment simply because they are unlawful. In this regard, it was pointed out in Judgments 2370 and 2745 that actions or decisions that result 'from honest mistake or even [...] inefficiency' cannot constitute harassment. And if administrative decisions are taken for improper purposes, that is a matter that is more appropriately dealt with by way of moral damages, rather than on the basis of harassment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2745

    Keywords:

    good faith; grounds; injury; intention of parties;



  • Judgment 2817


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

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision to remove him from his functions following the reorganisation of the department in which he was employed.
    "[There] are a number of matters pointing to the conclusion that the [impugned] decision was taken in bad faith. First, there is the fact that [...] there was no restructuring relevant to the complainant's post, although there was then a proposal to that effect. Further, no discussions were then held with the complainant with respect to the restructuring of [his] Department; he was not informed in a timely manner that the restructuring proposal had been replaced with another proposal [...] - a fact that was not disclosed to the Headquarters Board of Appeal by the Organization. No answer was given to his letter of 1 March 2006 and none to a subsequent letter of 28 August 2006 [...]."

    Keywords:

    good faith; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 2800


    106th Session, 2009
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 21

    Extract:

    "Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith; an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. Also, it is well established in the case law that bad faith cannot be presumed, it must be proven. Additionally, bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2293

    Keywords:

    burden of proof; evidence; good faith; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; working relations;



  • Judgment 2798


    106th Session, 2009
    International Organisation of Vine and Wine
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Director General of the OIV was notified in April 2006 that the ILO Governing Body had approved the OIV recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The complainant's counsel was so informed on 20 November 2006. The Organisation received on 3 August 2007 the complainant's request for re-examination of her dismissal. On 18 december 2007 the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal in which she impugned the implied rejection of her request for re-examination.
    "It is true that the recognition of the Tribunal's jurisdiction [...] was brought to the complainant's attention on 20 November 2006 at the latest. Given this fact and the particular circumstances of this case, the principle of good faith makes it necessary to choose this date alone, that is to say the date on which the complainant possessed all the information enabling her to defend her interests, as the starting point of the period within which a complaint could be filed with the Tribunal. The request for re-examination received by the Organisation on 3 August 2007 could not, however, have the effect of reopening the time limit for filing a complaint. The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the complainant, who under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal had ninety days as from 20 November 2006 to file her complaint, but who did not do so until 18 December 2007, was at all events time-barred."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; declaration of recognition; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time limit;



  • 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; 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 2768


    106th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    "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 employees in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2116, under 5). This duty of care is greater in a rather opaque or particularly complex legal situation. [...] When the complainant took up employment with the Office it had been possible, for at least a year, to obtain the transfer of pension rights from the USS to the Office's pension scheme. But it is clear from the file that the applicable rules were so complex that a mere perusal of the documentation would not enable employees to understand them fully. Furthermore, the Administration and staff members were still largely unfamiliar with the possibility of transferring pension rights. In the light of these particular circumstances, the Office's duty to inform could not be confined to merely handing the applicable texts to the staff members concerned by a possible transfer. This duty demanded that the Office, having obtained such information as was necessary, should draw to the attention of the staff members concerned the possibility of obtaining a transfer of pension rights and should inform them of the procedure to be followed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; participation; pension; pension entitlements; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; transfer of pension rights;



  • Judgment 2762


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

    Considerations 26-27

    Extract:

    The complainant challenges the EPO's decision to recruit the spouse of the former President of the Office. "The Organisation is correct in stating that the Service Regulations do not preclude the recruitment of the spouses of staff members. Nor does there appear to be any regulatory bar to the recruitment of the spouses, friends, or close associates of the highest ranking officials in the Organisation. Whether this type of recruitment ought to be permitted is not for the Tribunal to decide but is a question of policy for each organisation to answer.
    However, where an organisation permits such recruitment, then it is imperative that special procedures be put in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the selection process. Where such procedures have not been put in place, the presumptions of regularity and bona fides will not apply. In the absence of the operation of these presumptions, it will take very little to establish improper motive or bad faith."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; competition; executive head; family relationship; good faith; motivation; presumption; procedure before the tribunal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 2757


    105th Session, 2008
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "Malice is generally described either as the absence of good faith or as acting from improper motive. Frequently, the absence of a belief on reasonable grounds is sufficient to base an inference of malice. So, too, is the communication of information that is defamatory of a person to those who do not have a legitimate interest in obtaining that information."

    Keywords:

    communication to third party; definition; good faith; grounds; intention of parties;



  • Judgment 2750


    105th Session, 2008
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 27

    Extract:

    "Although [IAEA] Staff Regulation 4.02 provides that no notice is necessary in the case of expiry at the due date of a fixed-term or short-term appointment, the duty of an organisation to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of staff members requires that reasonable notice be given, 'particularly so that they may exercise their right to appeal and take whatever action may be necessary' (see Judgments 2104 and 2531)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IAEA Staff Regulation 4.02
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104, 2531

    Keywords:

    contract; date; fixed-term; good faith; notice; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right of appeal; separation from service; short-term; staff regulations and rules;

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


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top