Good faith (193,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Good faith
Total judgments found: 201
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
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; 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:
abuse of power; 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;
Judgment 2745
105th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 2524 that, although harassment and mobbing do not require bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent, 'behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question'. Thus, it was said in Judgment 2370 that conduct that 'had a valid managerial purpose or was the result of honest mistake, or even mere inefficiency' would not constitute harassment. However and as pointed out in Judgment 2524, 'an explanation which is prima facie reasonable may be rejected if there is evidence of ill will or prejudice or if the behaviour in question is disproportionate to the matter which is said to have prompted the course taken'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2370, 2524
Keywords:
bias; condition; conduct; consequence; definition; evidence; good faith; grounds; intention of parties; judgment of the tribunal; mistake of fact; organisation's duties; proportionality; qualifications; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2732
105th Session, 2008
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"Although the decision [to terminate the complainant's appointment during her probationary period] must be set aside, in view of the circumstances it is not clear that, even if she had been given a proper warning and an opportunity to improve, her appointment would have been confirmed. However, as a result of the Organization's actions she lost a valuable opportunity to improve and demonstrate her suitability for the position and to have her contract considered in that light. The loss of that opportunity warrants an award of material damages in the amount of 15,000 euros."
Keywords:
contract; decision; duty to inform; good faith; injury; material damages; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period;
Judgment 2729
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[I]f a donor government offers to fund the post of an associate expert for a further period, there is an obligation on the organisation in question to consider that offer in good faith. So much is implicit in the general duties of care and good faith owed by an organisation to its staff. That is not to say, however, that an organisation is bound to accept any such offer. It is simply to say that a person [...] is then entitled to have his or her contract renewed unless there is a valid reason for rejecting the offer. The same duty of good faith requires that an organisation not do anything to prevent such an offer being made."
Keywords:
contract; decision; good faith; grounds; legitimate expectation; non-renewal of contract; offer; organisation's duties; period; post; refusal;
Judgment 2722
105th Session, 2008
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, for example in Judgments 602, 1106, 1466 and 2463, time limits are an objective matter of fact and it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, because any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties' legal relations, which is the very justification for a time bar. As recalled in Judgment 1466, the only exceptions to this rule that the Tribunal has allowed are where the complainant has been prevented by vis major from learning of the impugned decision in good time (see Judgment 21), or where the 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 (see Judgment 752). It does not, however, appear from the evidence, nor is it even alleged that the complainants in this case found themselves in either of these situations."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 21, 602, 752, 1106, 1466, 2463, 2722
Keywords:
breach; case law; complaint; equity; exception; force majeure; good faith; grounds; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time bar; time limit;
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, for instance in Judgments 396, 1875, 2371 and 2475, international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members. This duty, which flows from the general principles governing the international civil service, is also applicable as a matter of course to former staff members of an organisation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2684
104th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 10
Extract:
It must be emphasised that it is up to the parties to work together in good faith to execute the Tribunal’s judgments so as to ensure that they are executed within a reasonable period of time. It is apparent from the submissions that the procedure for obtaining a further medical opinion, as ordered in Judgment 2551, has been delayed most regrettably in a case in which the Tribunal has already drawn attention to the excessive length of the proceedings.
[...]
However, [the Tribunal] is bound to observe that [...] the Union failed in its duty to execute Judgment 2551 in good faith. [T]here is justification for awarding the complainant compensation [...].
Keywords:
execution of judgment; good faith; moral injury;
Judgment 2642
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"In Judgment 2552 the Tribunal pointed out that an accusation of harassment 'requires that an international organisation both investigate the matter thoroughly and accord full due process and protection to the person accused'. Its duty to a person who makes a claim of harassment requires that the claim be investigated both promptly and thoroughly, that the facts be determined objectively and in their overall context (see Judgment 2524), that the law be applied correctly, that due process be observed and that the person claiming, in good faith, to have been harassed not be stigmatised or victimised on that account (see Judgment 1376)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376, 2524, 2552
Keywords:
due process; good faith; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; safeguard;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
