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 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;



  • Judgment 2598


    102nd Session, 2007
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    "Having studied the submissions the Tribunal notes that, in the internal appeal he filed on 30 September [...], the complainant expressly reserved the right to set out his position on the receivability of his appeal in the light of any explanations the Administration might supply in support of its reply; that in that reply the Organization dealt at length with the receivability of the internal appeal; that in his letter of 20 October [...] the complainant asked to be allowed to submit a rejoinder to the Organization's reply and to have the said reply, which was in English, translated into French to enable him to 'actually find out what it said'; and that the Appeal Board wrote its report four days after this request on which it had not acted.

    In view of the above-mentioned circumstances the Tribunal considers that, as the receivability of the appeal was disputed in the Organization's reply, respect for the principle of due process and the right to be heard required that the complainant be afforded an opportunity to present his point of view.

    The Tribunal holds that, although the Appeal Board was not obliged to accede to the complainant's request concerning translation of the Organization's reply, it ought to have informed the complainant so that he could, by his own means, 'actually find out' what the reply said and, if necessary, submit a rejoinder within a reasonable period of time, as he wished to do.

    The Tribunal considers that, as a result, the failure to observe the principle of due process deprived the complainant of his right to be heard on the essential issue of the receivability of his appeal."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; decision quashed; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; language of rule; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; rejoinder; reply; report; right to be heard;



  • Judgment 2584


    102nd Session, 2007
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Organization contends that the complainant had until 22 September 2003 to submit his notice of appeal. As it was submitted on 2 October, UNESCO considers that it was filed outside the time limit set down in the Statutes of the Appeals Board. The Tribunal notes that a memorandum of 5 September 2003 informed the complainant that the administration would contact him with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. "If an organisation invites settlement discussions or, even, participates in discussions of that kind, its duty of good faith requires that, unless it expressly states otherwise, it is bound to treat those discussions as extending the time for the taking of any further step. That is because settlement discussions must proceed on the basis that no further step will be necessary. Where, as here, there has been no actual decision but the Organization has invited settlement discussions, the duty of good faith requires it to treat the time for taking a further step as running from the termination of those discussions and not from some earlier date identifiable as the date of an implied negative decision. That is because the invitation necessarily implies that, no matter what the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules provide, no final decision has been or will be taken during the course of discussions."

    Keywords:

    absence of final decision; breach; collective bargaining; consequence; date; decision; exception; extension of contract; good faith; implied decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new time limit; organisation's duties; participation; procedure before the tribunal; proposal; provision; purpose; settlement out of court; staff regulations and rules; start of time limit; time limit; written rule;



  • Judgment 2567


    101st Session, 2006
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "[W]here a doubt arises regarding the meaning which should reasonably be given to the clause of a contract, according to the principle of good faith the clause should be interpreted to the detriment of the party which drafted the contract."

    Keywords:

    contract; general principle; good faith; intention of parties; interpretation; provision;



  • Judgment 2540


    101st Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "It was said in Judgment 442 that:
    «As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.»
    To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 442

    Keywords:

    allowance; consequence; difference; equity; general principle; good faith; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2524


    100th Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    To advance serious allegations that have not been properly investigated against an official before a body that must issue a decision or recommendation concerning that official amounts to "serious failure of due process and want of fairness and good faith".

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; breach; decision; due process; equity; good faith; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;

    Consideration 25

    Extract:

    "There were [...] fundamental errors of law in the approach of the [Joint Appeals] Panel. It proceeded on the basis that it was necessary to establish an intention to 'intimidate, insult, harass, abuse, discriminate or humiliate a colleague' and concluded that there must be 'bad faith or prejudice or other malicious intent' before that intention could be inferred. That is not correct. Harassment and mobbing do not require any such intent. However, behaviour will not be characterised as harassment or mobbing if there is a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question. (See Judgment 2370, under 17.) On the other hand, 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

    Keywords:

    bias; criteria; evidence; good faith; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 2515


    100th Session, 2006
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    An international organisation cannot depart from its "obligation to inform staff members of the aspects of their performance or conduct that are said to be unsatisfactory and to provide them with an opportunity to remedy the situation". Failing that, any decision based on such grounds (such as, for example, refusal to grant a salary increment) would be considered as "not taken in good faith".

    Keywords:

    conduct; consequence; decision; duty to inform; good faith; grounds; increase; organisation's duties; refusal; step; subsidiary; unsatisfactory service;



  • Judgment 2475


    99th Session, 2005
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he obligations of an employer to act in good faith and to respect the dignity of its employees determine what is permissible. In particular, these considerations require that an investigation be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made."

    Keywords:

    appraisal of evidence; condition; good faith; inquiry; investigation; official; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right to reply;



  • Judgment 2458


    99th Session, 2005
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 3 and 7

    Extract:

    In Judgment 2189 the Tribunal ordered the Organization to "appoint a medical board without delay". The complainant filed an application for execution of that judgment. "Once again, the complainant attempts to bypass the internal remedies, and have her internal appeal, which has been pending for over ten years, heard by the Tribunal on its merits. To do so, she would have to persuade the Tribunal that the failure of the medical board to take up and report on her claim and thereby allow her internal appeal to proceed was due to the wilful fault or neglect of UNIDO. [But] it is clear that [...] by July 2003, the necessary preliminary steps to set up the medical board had been taken and that the delays which took place after that time were largely due to the complainant herself. [...]
    The obligation imposed on the Organization by Judgment 2189 to establish a medical board without delay is not wholly a one-way street. The complainant owes a duty of good faith and in the circumstances this includes not only the duty not to impede or prevent the medical board's functioning [...] but also the duty actively to collaborate with the board and to allow it to undertake its duties effectively. If the complainant had reservations about the terms of reference of the board she no doubt had the right to make them known as she did, but she could not insist on them as non-negotiable conditions precedent to the board carrying out its inquiry."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2189

    Keywords:

    application for execution; delay; execution of judgment; good faith; internal appeal; medical board; order; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;



  • Judgment 2424


    98th Session, 2005
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "In accordance with its case law (see Judgment 941 in particular), the Tribunal considers that the defendant may not plead its own failure to act with regard to the complainant, who had good reason to infer that her internal complaint was still under review since she had been informed [...] that the Joint Committee for Disputes had reached an opinion of which she would soon be informed."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 941

    Keywords:

    case law; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; reasonable time; receivability of the complaint; report; time limit;



  • Judgment 2414


    98th Session, 2005
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "In Judgment 2170 the Tribunal described the requirement of Staff Rule 12.1.5 that an annual performance report be established prior to the scheduled date of a salary increment as 'a formal one' which had to be complied with. It is important to explain why that was so. A staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service so that steps can be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, he or she is entitled to have objectives set in advance so that he or she will know the yardstick by which future performance will be assessed. These are fundamental aspects of the duty of an international organisation to act in good faith towards its staff members and to respect their dignity. That is why it was said in Judgment 2170 that an organisation must 'conduct its affairs in a way that allows its employees to rely on the fact that [its rules] will be followed'."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 12.1.5 of the ITU
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170

    Keywords:

    criteria; due process; duty to inform; good faith; increase; increment; interpretation; organisation's duties; output; patere legem; performance evaluation; performance report; respect for dignity; salary; staff regulations and rules; time limit; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2408


    98th Session, 2005
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 23

    Extract:

    "[T]he decision not to renew her contract was not taken in implementation of the staff turnover policy [but] to rid the OPCW of the serious personal and professional conflict that existed between two senior members of the Secretariat and to avoid the necessity of taking steps to resolve that conflict. That was an improper purpose and to take a decision for that reason under cover of implementation of the staff turnover policy is both an abuse of authority and an act which demonstrates want of good faith."

    Keywords:

    contract; decision; good faith; grounds; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; purpose; working relations;



  • Judgment 2363


    97th Session, 2004
    Pan American Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."

    Keywords:

    advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;



  • Judgment 2345


    97th Session, 2004
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 1(c)

    Extract:

    "[A]n organisation, as part of its duty of care for its staff, is expected to help any staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right, if such help will enable the staff member to take useful action. If it is not too late, the organisation should also provide the staff member with procedural guidance.
    In this case, [...] the Organization should have realised that the complainant was mistaken and that he did not need to wait for an authorisation before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It had enough time to point out to him that his complaint against the Director-General's decision [...] should be filed directly with the Tribunal within ninety days after the notification of the decision.
    As the complainant was not given that guidance, he failed to act in time and the complaint should be declared irreceivable. Such a ruling would not, however, be compatible with the requirements of good faith which the parties and the Tribunal must observe."

    Keywords:

    complaint; date of notification; direct appeal to tribunal; duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; internal appeal; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; time bar; time limit; tribunal;

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


 
Last updated: 23.11.2020 ^ top