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

Duty to inform (204,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to inform
Total judgments found: 149

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

  • Judgment 4400


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the International Labour Office, impugns the decisions of the Director-General to issue a reprimand against him, to revoke his appointment as a Director, to appoint another person to that post and, finally, to discharge him with notice.

    Consideration 31

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that an international organisation is entitled to ask its officials to inform it of any criminal convictions against them and that the duties of good faith and integrity oblige them to reply truthfully to such requests.

    Keywords:

    criminal sanction; duty of loyalty; duty to inform; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 4254


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his appointment beyond the statutory retirement age.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he rules applied must be communicated to those concerned before the initial decision is taken.

    Keywords:

    duty to inform;



  • Judgment 4251


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which she participated and the appointment made at the end of that procedure.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that the Organization’s long-established practice of communicating substantive information on the selection process only at its formal end, is correct, as until that time, there cannot be any certainty as to the final outcome.

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; practice; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4215


    129th Session, 2020
    Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm his appointment at the end of his probation period.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [A]lthough the complainant must have known that the Secretary General was not satisfied with his performance, he was not given the necessary time to remedy this situation. To underline this point, it suffices to recall that the decision to end the complainant’s appointment was taken on 25 April 2013, that he was notified of it – according to his uncontested account – on 30 April and that it took effect on 1 May, whereas the complainant had taken up his duties just a few weeks previously on 1 March 2013, and his probation period was due to end on 30 June. The complainant thus had very little time to prove his worth and, above all, was given no opportunity to take appropriate action in response to the criticisms directed at him. This is made still clearer by the emails submitted by the Organisation showing that the Secretary General’s criticisms of the complainant were, for the most part, not made until the fortnight immediately preceding the decision of 25 April. The fact is that when the complainant received the decision, he was presented with a fait accompli, which blatantly contradicts the requirement laid down in the case law that in such a situation a staff member must be granted sufficient time to enable him to improve his performance.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; probationary period; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4194


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the refusal to consult them concerning the use of external contractors.

    Considerations 7-9

    Extract:

    Each staff member of an international organisation has a right to freely associate and the organisation has a corresponding duty to respect that right. This is a necessary incident of their employment (see, for example, Judgment 911, consideration 3). On the assumption that, as an incident of freedom of association, an organisation has a duty to meet or satisfy a staff representative’s legitimate request for information as an element of a broader obligation to consult (see, for example, Judgment 2919, consideration 15), and fails to do so, then a staff representative would, in that individual capacity and on this assumption, have a cause of action to enforce that duty.

    There is no issue that, at the time these complaints were filed, each of the complainants had ceased being a member of the Munich Staff Committee even if one or a number may have held another office as a staff representative. Thus, when the proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal, the foundation of their cause of action had been removed. Their complaints are irreceivable.

    This is not a barren technical conclusion. If their complaints were receivable, the merits of the case and the grant of relief would depend on the complainants demonstrating an ongoing right to be provided with the information and a right, if it existed, to continue to require the EPO to do what had been earlier requested. An immediate and probably insuperable problem would arise concerning relief if the complainants were able to establish, on the merits, they had been and were entitled to some or all of the information they had sought or had a right to request that certain things be done. But as they are no longer members of the Munich Staff Committee, they are not now entitled to any information of the type sought in the letter of 17 September 2009 nor to assert a right that the EPO do certain things. However this conclusion is not a barrier, more generally, to the enforcement of a right a member of a staff committee may have to be provided with information or a right to require the organisation to act in circumstances where the membership of the committee fluctuates over time. That is because when a staff representative has asserted a right arising from that status, the assertion or vindication of that right in proceedings before the Tribunal can be pursued by a newly elected staff representative as a “successor in title” (see Judgment 3465, consideration 3).
    That would ordinarily involve the relevant committee approving the new staff representative assuming the role of the former staff representative. If approval was given then all steps taken by the former staff representative could be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. In this way, steps taken by the former staff representative to pursue the grievance by way of internal appeal can be treated as steps taken by the new staff representative. The prosecution of a complaint in the Tribunal by the new staff representative would not be defeated by an argument that the new staff representative had not exhausted internal means of redress. She or he would have done so vicariously because of the actions of the former staff representative.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 911, 2919, 3465

    Keywords:

    cause of action; duty to inform; freedom of association; internal remedies exhausted; staff representative;



  • 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 4111


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded. This plea is well founded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4110


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that he was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into his allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that he was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was he able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4109


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4108


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, alleges that she was subjected to harassment and that the investigation into her allegations of harassment was flawed.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [S]ince some of the statements gathered by the investigator were neither recorded nor summarized as such in the investigation report or the annexes thereto, the complainant was unable to respond to them in the comments that she was invited to submit to HRD concerning the report. Nor was she able to verify whether the investigator, in her report, had correctly interpreted the statements of which no minutes were taken. According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant must have the opportunity to see the statements gathered in order to challenge or rectify them, if necessary by furnishing evidence (see Judgments 3065, consideration 8, and 3617, consideration 12). This did not occur in this case with regard to the unrecorded statements.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that, in these circumstances, the adversarial principle was disregarded.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3065, 3617

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; due process; duty to inform; evidence; inquiry; investigation; procedural flaw; right to be heard; testimony;



  • Judgment 4088


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    The JAB’s conclusions concerning the effect of the supervisors’ failure to communicate properly with the complainant during the process rest on good grounds, particularly given the JAB’s earlier statement that the complainant’s supervisors had admitted that that failure “had certainly exhibited a lack of compassion and they apologised for that”. Nonetheless, the JAB’s conclusions have no bearing on the legality of the impugned decision, notwithstanding they support an argument that the IAEA breached its duty of care to the complainant. But that is not the subject-matter of this complaint.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform;



  • Judgment 4080


    127th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant claims that the Organisation has breached its duty of care towards him following an accident at work, involving a contractor, which resulted in national judicial proceedings.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Regarding the disclosure of the internal audit report, [...] the Tribunal notes that although the report was eventually forwarded to the complainant on 18 November 2015, following the Director General’s decision of 3 November 2015 to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, the Organisation should have forwarded it to the complainant, under its duty of care towards staff members, at the time when the Belgian Labour Prosecutor’s Office was contemplating taking criminal action against him. Indeed, from an extract of the draft internal audit report included in the dossier, it is clear that in all likelihood the report contained information which could have helped the complainant to defend his case in the event of such action.

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; duty of care; duty to inform; inquiry; investigation;



  • 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 4060


    127th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, an ICC Senior Security Officer, contests the decision to temporarily withdraw his authorisation to carry a firearm.

    Consideration 29

    Extract:

    [A] review of the chronology [...] shows that the Administration failed to provide the complainant with relevant information in a timely manner. This led to unnecessary delays in the resolution of the complainant’s case, misunderstandings, and was an affront to the complainant’s dignity. This ongoing failure to provide the complainant with the information which he was entitled to receive is exacerbated by the fact that the ICC has not advanced any reasons for withholding the information. The complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 20,000 euros and costs in the amount of 6,000 euros.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; injury; moral injury; respect for dignity;



  • 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 3963


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that the Organisation has breached its duty of care in relation to possible taxation of the invalidity allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; duty to inform;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Having regard to the way in which the questions were formulated, the Organisation supplied answers which may be deemed adequate. The Tribunal therefore finds that, in the circumstances, the EPO honoured its obligation to provide information and its duty of care. Indeed, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3213, under 7, whilst international organisations have a duty of care towards their employees and must provide clear rules and regulations as well as clarifications of such when requested, they cannot be solely responsible for every situation stemming from a misunderstanding of those rules.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3213

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 3953


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to impose upon her the disciplinary measure of downgrading and to recover from her undue payments through monthly deductions from her salary.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant filled out and signed the “Declaration concerning rent allowance” on 7 March 2005, thereby assuming the obligations arising from Article 74 of the Service Regulations. The consequent obligation to notify the Office of any changes aimed at guaranteeing the proper use of the rent allowance. Furthermore, with respect to Apt. A, the complainant alleges that in a similar case the EPO acted differently. However, the objection is unfounded. By failing to notify the EPO that the rent she was paying for Apt. A did not only relate to her as from April 2005, when her partner moved into the apartment, although she had certified on 7 March 2005 that she would notify “any changes” immediately, the complainant breached the rules governing the granting of the rent allowance, unjustly benefiting, and, hence, the principle of equality cannot be applied, as there can be no equality in illegality.

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; misrepresentation; staff member's duties;



  • Judgment 3940


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3376 [...] the Tribunal recalled that an organisation “that resorts to subcontractors, be they companies or individuals, must ensure that the contract it signs with them will not have an adverse impact on the situation of officials who are subject to the staff regulations and will not unjustifiably infringe the rights they enjoy under those regulations. The risk of such an infringement is particularly great in the case of long-term contractual outsourcing and in cases where the tasks involved are still partly performed concurrently by regular staff (see Judgment 2919 passim). In such cases the duty of care requires the organisation to provide the staff concerned with adequate information concerning the outsourcing procedures and their possible impact on their professional situation and to prevent any possible adverse impact thereon (see Judgments 2519, under 10, 1756, under 10(b), and 1780, under 6(a)).”
    [...]
    The lack of transparency noted by the Appeals Board is corroborated by the evidence on file, which shows that although the complainant contacted his supervisors on numerous occasions, they did not provide him with sufficient information as to the reasons for the outsourcing of the tasks that he performed and the way in which it would be achieved. Moreover, the evidence does not show that the Organization did its utmost to minimise the negative impact of the use of service contracts on the complainant’s status.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 1780, 2519, 2919, 3376

    Keywords:

    duty of care; duty to inform; outsourcing;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    It should also be noted that, in breach of the UPU’s duty of care and duty to protect the dignity of its staff members, the complainant was not even notified directly of the abolition of his post. He was instead informed, as all staff, via the publication of a corrigendum of January 2015 to internal memorandum No. 02/2015, stating, inter alia, that a “P3 Post (French Translation Service)” would be abolished (along with the other four posts). The Tribunal recalls that “[t]he decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment” (see Judgment 3041, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; duty of care; duty to inform;

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


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top