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: 158

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



  • Judgment 2991


    110th Session, 2011
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person's work carried out in compliance with previously established rules (see, for example, Judgments 1911, under 6, and 2414, under 23)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1911, 2414

    Keywords:

    contract; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; formal requirements; grounds; international civil service principles; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;



  • Judgment 2982


    110th Session, 2011
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    "[The complainant] was replaced virtually immediately even though his contract had somewhat less than two months to run [...] and he had earlier been told that he was to be provided with assistance for the project; he was given no warning of the decision; he was not heard on the question and adequate reasons were not provided. Replacing the complainant in these circumstances constituted '[a]ctions [...] directed at actively damaging [his] personal and/or professional reputation' and, thus, falls within the definition of 'harassment' in General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: IOM General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002

    Keywords:

    decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; reassignment; warning;



  • Judgment 2940


    109th Session, 2010
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3(b)

    Extract:

    "In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767

    Keywords:

    advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;



  • Judgment 2877


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

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    In their capacity as staff representatives, the complainants challenged the Administrative Council's decision to introduce a new specimen contract for Vice-Presidents without prior consultation with the General Advisory Committee. The Tribunal held that to the extent that the new specimen contract introduced provisions with respect to the pensions of Vice-Presidents who previously served in the European Patent Office it should have been referred to the General Advisory Committee.
    "It is trite law that "where a final decision refuses, to a staff member's detriment, to follow a favourable recommendation of the internal appeal body such decision must be fully and adequately motivated" (see Judgment 2339, under 5). It is equally well established that if reasons are required, the reasons must be sufficiently clear, precise and intelligible so that a complainant knows why the appeal has been rejected and he is in a position to assess whether a complaint should be filed with the Tribunal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339

    Keywords:

    decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; right; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2869


    108th Session, 2010
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The complainant, a staff union representative, challenged the Agency's decision not to promote him in the course of the 2007 promotion exercise. He claimed that he was among the most senior staff eligible for promotion and that the Administration had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Tribunal found in his favour.
    "[T]he present situation has the appearance of an abuse of discretion. The complainant's situation is extreme (i.e. being promoted much less frequently than the average) yet there has been no valid reason given for the continued nonpromotion. According to Eurocontrol's reasoning, without a breach of procedure or obvious flaw, the Agency does not have to explain its decisions. This is not correct. Precedent has it that "there is no rule or principle of law that requires the Director-General to state in so many words just why he has turned someone down for promotion or appointment. What matters is that, if the official asks, the reasons must be revealed. Otherwise the Tribunal may not exercise its power of review and determine whether the reasons are lawful and the decision sound" (see Judgment 1355, under 8)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1355

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; promotion; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union activity;



  • Judgment 2840


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

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal rejects WHO's reliance on its letter [...] as being a communication of a decision that the complainant would not need to have an exit medical examination. There is no basis upon which it could be inferred from the statement «the administrative formalities have been completed» that the mandatory exit medical examination provided for in the Staff Rules was being unilaterally waived. Given that an exit medical examination is mandatory and has potentially significant legal consequences for both parties, it would be expected that a deviation from the norm would be specifically communicated."

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2839


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

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."

    Keywords:

    assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."

    Keywords:

    assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229

    Keywords:

    assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;



  • Judgment 2836


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "[A]lthough the Tribunal's case law requires that an official on probation be warned in a timely manner that his/her appointment might not be confirmed, it does not require that a decision not to renew a contract should rest on exactly the same criticisms as those of which the person concerned had previously been notified (see Judgments 1546 and 2162)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1546, 2162

    Keywords:

    case law; difference; duty to inform; grounds; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; probationary period; warning;



  • 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 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 2767


    106th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7(b)

    Extract:

    "The Director-General did not rely on any special feature of the case in order to justify his refusal to follow the recommendation of the Board [to inform the complainant of the names of the IRG members who had examined her case]. In this respect, the argument that the complainant did in fact find out who was on the IRG panel at the hearing on 7 July 2006 is inoperative [...]. It must be concluded that the Director-General refused without good reason to rectify a procedural flaw by not informing the complainant of the identity of the IRG members."

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; internal appeal; organisation's duties; recommendation; right to reply; staff member's interest;



  • 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 2700


    104th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has consistently held, the staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him. Under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)).
    As the Organization points out, there may indeed be some special cases in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. But such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers (see Judgment 1756, under 10)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756, 2229

    Keywords:

    case law; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; duty to inform; exception; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purpose; refusal;



  • Judgment 2599


    102nd Session, 2007
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence to prove that the complainant was given any kind of access to the report on which the Director General is said to have based her decision to dismiss her.
    It may be concluded from the above and from the evidence in the file that the impugned decision was taken in breach of the safeguards regarding the provision of proper conditions for probation, resulting from the rules and regulations, from general principles of law and from the Tribunal's case law, and, in particular, in breach of the complainant's right to be heard.
    The impugned decision must therefore be quashed."

    Keywords:

    breach; case law; due process; duty to inform; general principle; grounds; organisation's duties; probationary period; report; right to reply; safeguard; termination of employment;



  • 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 [...] 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 2531


    101st Session, 2006
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9-10

    Extract:

    "A question remains as to whether the complainant was given sufficient notice of the Organization's intention not to renew his contract. Precedent has it that staff on short-term contracts are entitled, before any decision is taken not to extend or renew their appointment, to 'reasonable notice', particularly so that they may exercise their right to appeal and take whatever action may be necessary. It is true that in this case the short-term Staff Rules do not require any notice, except in the event of termination (when notice is limited to seven days), which does not apply in this case. Account should be taken, however, of the fact that the complainant was employed uninterruptedly by the Organization for more than three years. He was officially notified of the non-renewal of his contract - which until then had been regularly renewed - only by a letter he received on 28 January 2004, that is three days prior to the expiry of his last appointment. The defendant Organization suggests that he was well aware that his contract would not be renewed since he had been informed of that fact first unofficially and then officially on 16 January 2004. It even goes so far as to argue that the announcement of the competition for the complainant's post in the vacancy notice of 27 October 2003 constituted the 'reasonable notice' required by the case law and that, from that date onwards, the complainant knew full well that if he was not selected he would not continue working for the [Organization].

    The Tribunal considers that it was only through the non-renewal decision received on 28 January 2004 that the complainant was able to know for certain that he would be leaving the Organization and that he would not be offered any other employment, despite the fact that [...] he had performed many duties, starting in 1998. Thus the situation is not very different from that dealt with by the Tribunal in its Judgment 2104 [...] and it is worth noting that, in its attempt to reach a settlement, the Organization had offered to pay the complainant the equivalent of three months' salary, consisting of two months in lieu of reasonable notice and one month for moral injury. That proposal was reasonable and, in view of the long working relationship between the [Organization] and the complainant and the very brief time that elapsed between the notification of the non-renewal of the contract and the end of the complainant's appointment, the Tribunal will echo that proposal by ruling that the complainant shall be paid a sum equal to three months' salary and allowances."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2104

    Keywords:

    case law; competition; contract; decision; duty to inform; non-renewal of contract; notice; organisation's duties; right of appeal; seniority; separation from service; short-term; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2529


    101st Session, 2006
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The Tribunal's case law is voluminous and consistent to the effect that an organisation owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1212, 1386, 2170, 2414

    Keywords:

    case law; duty to inform; organisation's duties; probationary period; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2515


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

    Consideration 18

    Extract:

    "The decision to advertise the complainant's post [...] was in substance a decision to dismiss him from that post. No reason was ever provided for that decision [...] In the circumstances, it must be concluded that the decision resulted from the management review [conducted by the Chief of the Personnel and Social Protection Department]. In this regard, it is necessary only to observe that that review involved a denial of due process in that the complainant was not told precisely who had criticised his performance or conduct, nor was he told exactly what they had said. Moreover, he was not given an opportunity to question them or to rebut what was put against him. The decision to dismiss him from his post thus involved a serious breach of the requirements of due process."

    Keywords:

    adversarial proceedings; breach; competition; contract; decision; due process; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; right to reply; unsatisfactory service; vacancy notice;

    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 2427


    99th Session, 2005
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[T]he vacancy notice stipulated: «Good knowledge of English or French; basic knowledge of the other language or an understanding to acquire it rapidly». The complainant denies that the importance of acquiring rapidly a basic knowledge of French was clearly explained to him, but his denial fails to take into account that even the vacancy notice was unambiguous in that regard. The Tribunal finds, from the evidence on file, that he was sufficiently warned, at the beginning of his probation period and later on, about the language requirements for his post. It is clear, and the complainant admits, that his knowledge of French did not improve enough to enable him to participate in meetings, right to the end of his probation period. That alone constitutes sufficient cause for his negative end-of-probation report. Such cause, and the resulting termination of his appointment, could not possibly have surprised him."

    Keywords:

    consequence; duty to inform; grounds; knowledge of languages; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probation report; probationary period; staff member's duties; termination of employment; vacancy notice;



  • 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;

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top