Respect for dignity (205, 206,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Respect for dignity
Total judgments found: 133
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members (see, for example, Judgment 3613, consideration 46) and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 3861, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3613, 3861
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; professional reputation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4427
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his transfer to a patent examiner post.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the decision to transfer him to the examiner’s position violated the EPO’s duty of care and his dignity is well founded given the indignity and humiliation he suffered by virtue of his transfer from the administrative post that he held for some 16 years to what was, in effect, an entry level examiner’s position. The Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 4240, consideration 16, for example, that an organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed. It should have been obvious to the EPO that the complainant’s responsibilities in the new post were significantly different from those responsibilities which were attached to his previous post and were not objectively comparable with his previous responsibilities. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the complainant’s legitimate objections to the proposed transfer were properly addressed by the Administration before he was transferred.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4240
Keywords:
duty of care; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4411
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.
Consideration 22
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 3613, consideration 46, “[i]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that ‘international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members’ (Judgment 2861, under 91; see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371, 2475 and 2720)”. Based on the nature of the content of the complainant’s communications with the Administration subsequent to her receipt of the email of 8 May 2017, it is clear that the unexpected notification of the abolition of her post and the termination of her appointment was a serious affront to the complainant’s dignity and caused her significant personal harm, for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720, 2861, 3613
Keywords:
abolition of post; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4265
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her allegations of harassment.
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
In her brief, the complainant says that upon returning from sick leave and at a meeting [...], she asked [VP1] “to inform [her] about the reasons and the result of his ‘inquiry’. His answer was that, since [she] had not been negatively affected, there was no need to inform [her].” [...] The complainant’s request was entirely reasonable. At best, VP1 was telling the complainant in an entirely summary if not dismissive way he had discovered no, or no significant, dissatisfaction with her leadership. He was otherwise refusing to discuss the matter further. In the circumstances, this was an entirely unjustified curt response about a matter of considerable importance to the complainant. The response did not respect the dignity of the complainant.
Viewing all the events discussed in the preceding considerations collectively, it cannot be said that the complainant has established a course of conduct that can be characterised as sustained or ongoing harassment. However she is entitled to moral damages for the conduct referred to in the preceding consideration. They are assessed in the sum of 10,000 euros.
Keywords:
respect for dignity;
Judgment 4261
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of a decision to assign her additional duties on a temporary basis.
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is a well-established principle in the Tribunal’s case law, as was recently stated in Judgment 4178, consideration 14, citing Judgment 3353, consideration 26, that “[a]n organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided”. In the present case the complainant, who held a senior position within the EPO, agreed to take on additional duties subject to certain conditions a significant number of which were directed towards relieving her of some of the burdens of doing so. The complainant received unqualified assurances that her conditions concerning support would be met. The fact that she would take on those additional duties was made known widely within the Organisation. It cannot be doubted, in the Tribunal’s opinion, that the abandoning of this arrangement because the unqualified assurances could, in fact, not be met would have caused the complainant considerable distress and disappointment, particularly having regard to the fact that the arrangement had been widely publicised within the Organisation. The complainant is entitled to moral damages[.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3353, 4178
Keywords:
distress; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; distress; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Every international organisation is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see Judgment 2067, consideration 17). It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgments 3071, consideration 36, and 3337, consideration 11). Having noted that no investigation had been conducted by HRD, the JAAB itself undertook a detailed examination of the allegations. Such an approach is acceptable if the examination satisfies the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law with regard to investigations into harassment allegations: such investigations must be prompt and thorough, the facts must be established objectively and in their overall context, the law must be applied correctly and due process must be observed (see Judgments 2642, consideration 8, and 3692, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067, 2642, 3071, 3337, 3692
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant submits that her reassignment to the post of Senior Advisor violated WHO’s post classification standards. She presents arguments and a narrative that are highly technical to support this assertion and essentially invites the Tribunal to undertake a technical assessment of that evidence. The Tribunal has consistently stated that such an exercise falls within the purview of persons whose expertise by training and experience fits them to undertake it (see, for example, Judgments 4024, consideration 3, and 4083, consideration 8). It is however within the Tribunal’s purview to determine, as stated in Judgment 3488, consideration 3, whether in keeping with its duty of care to the complainant, in reassigning her WHO/UNAIDS showed due regard, in both form and substance, for her dignity, particularly by providing her with work of the same level as that which she performed in her previous post and matching her qualifications. That is, whether WHO/UNAIDS ensured that the responsibilities that attached to her new post were comparable, on an objective basis, to the level of the functions that she performed in her previous post (see, for example, Judgment 1343, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 3488, 4024, 4083
Keywords:
duty of care; post classification; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] [...] erred when it did not further consider whether, on the basis of the significantly different responsibilities, WHO/UNAIDS had breached its duty of care towards the complainant. The Tribunal has stated in Judgment 2191, consideration 3, that organizations must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed. It should have been obvious to the GBA from its own analysis that the complainant’s responsibilities had been reduced materially because of the absence of supervisory or managerial functions from the Senior Advisor post so that that post was not objectively comparable with her previous Director, TIN, post (see, for example, Judgment 4086, consideration 14). There is no evidence in the file to show that the complainant’s legitimate objections to the proposed reassignment, particularly concerning her level of responsibility, were properly addressed by the Administration before that decision was imposed on her on 28 January 2016. The complainant’s allegation that in reassigning her the Organization breached its duty of care towards her is therefore well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2191, 4086
Keywords:
duty of care; reassignment; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4231
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s finding in consideration 7 of Judgment 3596 merely accepted that special leave pursuant to Staff Rule 302.5.21 is intended as a privilege for the benefit of staff members for the reasons stated in that Rule “or for other important reasons”, which, in effect, must similarly be for the benefit of staff members by virtue of the ejusdem generis rule. Accordingly, in that case, as in the present case, the FAO committed an error of law and an abuse of authority when it used Staff Rule 302.5.21 unilaterally, for a purpose which was extraneous to the Rule, and in the manner in which it did.
[T]he complainant’s plea that the FAO committed an error of law and an abuse of authority when it placed him on special leave with pay some six months prior to the expiration of his appointment is well founded. The impugned decision of 12 March 2018, as well as the decisions of 4 July 2014 and 1 December 2014, will be set aside insofar as they concern the placement of the complainant on special leave. The complainant will be awarded moral damages for the harm to his professional reputation and to his dignity that he states he has suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of the decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3596
Keywords:
leave with pay; moral injury; respect for dignity; special leave;
Judgment 4217
129th Session, 2020
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to provide her with the record of the investigation that ensued after she filed a harassment complaint against her supervisor, and the fact that she received no compensation for the moral harassment that she claims to have suffered.
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:
compensation; harassment; moral injury; respect for dignity; working conditions;
Judgment 4178
128th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.
Consideration 14
Extract:
As was stated in Judgment 3353, consideration 26, “[a]n organisation must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided”. Although the Administration remedied the error itself, as a result of the breach of the provision and the unnecessary communication to the complainant, undoubtedly, the complainant was deeply disappointed by his non-promotion and understandably distressed not knowing for an inordinate amount of time about what had led to him not being promoted for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3353
Keywords:
injury; moral injury; respect for dignity;
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 11
Extract:
[Internal] provisions simply apply the duty of care, to which the complainant also refers, owed by all international organisations. In its case law, the Tribunal has emphasised that the relations between an international organisation and its staff members must be governed by good faith, respect, transparency and consideration for their dignity (see Judgment 1479, consideration 12). An organisation must therefore treat its staff with proper consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. It must care for the dignity of its staff members and not cause them unnecessary personal distress and disappointment where this could be avoided (see, for example, Judgments 1756, consideration 10(a), and 3353, consideration 26). As the Tribunal held in Judgment 2524, an international organisation has a duty to provide a safe and adequate environment for its staff (see also Judgment 2706, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1479, 1756, 2706, 3353
Keywords:
duty of care; respect for dignity;
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 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4079
127th Session, 2019
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The UPU filed an application for interpretation and review of Judgment 3930 and the complainant in that case filed an application for execution of that judgment.
Consideration 24
Extract:
The delay in fully executing Judgment 3930 has caused the complainant moral injury. In awarding moral damages, the Tribunal takes into particular account the following: the duration of the delay, the fact that there was no need to seek a decision from the Council of Administration to authorize the execution of a judgment of the Tribunal, particularly when the budget was already approved for payments of awards, and the misleading presentation made by the International Bureau (in the presentation to the Council of Administration debating whether or not to execute the judgment) that the complainant’s illness was feigned. The International Bureau acted without presenting any evidence from a medical board and without having completed a disciplinary proceeding with regard to that unproven allegation, in violation of its duty of care and in breach of the adversarial principle. The UPU must respect the dignity of its staff members and preserve their reputation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3930
Keywords:
delay in payment; duty of care; execution of judgment; moral injury; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4074
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to review or amend the separation agreement offered to him and to terminate his appointment without the appropriate financial package.
Consideration 15
Extract:
Without descending into detail having regard to the position of the Global Fund referred to in the preceding consideration, the advancing of the practical end date of the complainant’s employment [...] was peremptory, without adequate explanation and was conducted in a way including a request that the complainant immediately leave the premises, that did not respect the complainant’s dignity. While he alleges this effect, the complainant has not proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal any damage to his career or reputation. The complainant is entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 30,000 Swiss francs and which reflect that he was a senior executive brought in to assist the organisation during change and had, it clearly appears, performed at the high level expected of him. The level of damages should reflect that this was the context in which he was very poorly treated at the time he was summarily excluded from the organisation and following.
Keywords:
moral injury; respect for dignity;
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 4012
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him compensation for the harm allegedly caused to him by the fact that emails that he considers to be defamatory were stored in a folder accessible to all users of the FAO’s IT network.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The emails at issue were communications between Ms T., a Legal Officer, and the complainant’s Division Director, new to the FAO, in which the latter’s managerial concerns in dealing with the complainant were addressed. It is observed that Ms T.’s communications with the Division Director formed part of her official functions that included providing background information and advice to managers. The emails were marked confidential and in the circumstances were, particularly having regard to their subject-matter, private communications. Additionally, there was no publication or deliberate dissemination of the information. However, the filing of confidential personnel information in a publicly accessible email folder constituted a breach of the Organization’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information. The complainant, however, did not suffer any damage because of this breach. Leaving aside the fact that the complainant did not submit any evidence whatsoever let alone evidence establishing damage to his reputation or otherwise, he contributed to the possibility of a staff member accidently seeing the emails by not divulging the location of the emails when asked by the Administration. As soon as the emails were located, they were immediately removed. Taking this into account, there will be no award of moral damages for the breach.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; 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 3903
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 24
Extract:
[T]here is no evidence in the record to support the assertion that a review of the requirements of newly created positions was undertaken to ascertain whether the complainant had the necessary qualifications for any of those positions. It would be expected that the complainant would have at least been informed that other options had been considered. More importantly, it is also noted that the possible options considered were limited to the newly created positions as a result of the restructuring. The duty contemplated in the case law is aimed at finding other employment within the broader organisation and is not limited to newly created positions as a result of restructuring. As stated in the case law, the failure to explore with the complainant other possible options within the Court was a breach of the ICC’s duty to treat the complainant with dignity and respect (see, for example, Judgment 2902, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3861
124th Session, 2017
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant her flexible working arrangements during the breastfeeding period.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 3024, under 12, the Tribunal recalled that 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 officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3024
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; organisation's duties; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3730
123rd Session, 2017
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that Eurocontrol withdrew his title and duties as Head of Section.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he behaviour of the complainant’s superiors, whom he was entitled to presume had authority, maintained his belief that they would take the necessary steps to have him promoted to the generic post corresponding to the duties entrusted to him, or that he would be granted a differential allowance, which he claims for the first time in these proceedings.
As such a promotion procedure was not feasible under Article 5(3)(c) or Article 45a(1) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant was unduly kept in an illusory position for an excessively long time, which undeniably constituted a substantial affront to his dignity.
Keywords:
moral injury; respect for dignity;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
