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

Transfer (255, 256, 257,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Transfer
Total judgments found: 135

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

  • Judgment 4488


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her to another post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; transfer;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]his response does not answer the fundamental proposition emerging from Judgment 2819, namely that if the new tasks involve none of the tasks specified in the Service Regulations for a grade A6 post, the transfer did not respect the transferee’s dignity (see consideration 8, as explained more fully in that judgment).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2819

    Keywords:

    transfer;



  • Judgment 4472


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to appoint an official to his former post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; transfer;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [A]rticle 7 of the Staff Regulations allows the Director General, acting solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality, to assign each official by transfer to a post in his function group, which corresponds to his grade and his service.
    In the event of a transfer under Article 7, in which the Director General has broad discretion, the Organisation is not required to announce the vacancy or organise a competition to fill the post under Articles 4 or 30 of the Staff Regulations (see Judgment 1757, consideration 11). The complainant does not contest that, as Eurocontrol submits, there was an interest of the service that warranted the use of that procedure to fill the post. This plea will therefore be dismissed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757

    Keywords:

    interest of the service; transfer;



  • Judgment 4459


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to defer her transfer, under IOM’s policy on rotation, to Sudan until she was able to find adequate medical and schooling facilities for her disabled daughter.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; duty of care; transfer;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s view is that the complainant reasonably requested that her move to Sudan be delayed and that, pursuant to paragraph 5 to Annex 8 to the Staff Rules relating to rotation and the duty of care owed to the complainant, the Director General should have continued to temporarily waive her transfer under the rotation policy out of consideration for her daughter’s special needs and related family circumstances until she was able to secure suitable facilities there for her educational needs. This would have been in accordance with the duty of care which IOM owed to the complainant, which was accordingly breached.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; transfer;



  • Judgment 4451


    133rd Session, 2022
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In respect of its consideration of the various pleas, the Tribunal wishes to begin by pointing out that, with regard to decisions to transfer, appoint, reassign or promote an international civil servant or to refuse to select her or him for a vacant post, it considers, in accordance with established case law, that such decisions lie within the discretion of the competent authority of the organisation concerned and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, such a decision may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will be especially wary in reviewing a transfer since it may not replace the employer’s rating of the official with its own (see, inter alia, Judgments 1556, consideration 5, and 4408, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1556, 4408

    Keywords:

    discretion; role of the tribunal; transfer;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that a transfer decision satisfies the requirements laid down in its case law concerning the statement of reasons when, in particular, the staff member was given explanations enabling her or him to comment on the new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision was taken (see Judgment 3662, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal considers that, just as the requisite statement of reasons may be contained in the notification informing the staff member of the decision or any other document, the reasons may also be provided in prior proceedings, or orally (see, inter alia, Judgments 1590, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 4397, consideration 15), or may even be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, consideration 7, and 3316, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316, 3662, 4397

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; transfer;



  • 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 2

    Extract:

    [C]onsistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; rests upon a mistake of fact or law or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4084, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; transfer;

    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;

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Given the unlawfulness of the decision to transfer the complainant to the examiner’s post in October 2008 and his evidence of the injury (the humiliation and loss of status) which the transfer decision caused him, he is entitled to moral damages for which he will be awarded 50,000 Swiss francs.

    Keywords:

    moral injury; transfer;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer;



  • Judgment 4399


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him from a manager position to a non-managerial post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; conflict of interest; transfer;



  • Judgment 4397


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; transfer;

    Considerations 10-12

    Extract:

    The claim that the [transfer] decision […] lacked legal basis is well founded. The Organisation relied on its general power to restructure its services to justify the complainant’s “reassignment” […]. The Organisation notes that the Tribunal’s case law forms part of its legal framework. However, the Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that “any authority is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends, suspends or repeals them. The general principle is that rules govern only what is to happen henceforth, and it is binding on any authority since it affords the basis for relations between the parties in law. Furthermore, a rule is enforceable only from the date on which it is brought to the notice of those to whom it applies (see Judgment 963, under 5). A competent body adopts rules in order to regulate its exercise of discretionary power in making specific decisions. It would radically contrast with the finality and essence of a rule (which is by nature general and abstract) to allow that in making a decision the authority can disregard a rule that was adopted in order to limit the authorities’ power concerning particular subjects and instead create an opportunity for expanding one’s power. Obviously, the procedure to adopt rules must be different from the procedure to make decisions, because rules are general and apply to many (undefined) and therefore must be published accordingly, whereas decisions are more precise and apply to few (defined)” (see Judgment 2575, consideration 6).

    In stating that “the legal basis for restructuring decisions [is] not to be found exclusively in the [Service Regulations]”, the Appeals Committee misinterpreted the Tribunal’s case law. While it is true that, in taking restructuring decisions, the executive head can also rely on some well-established principles enshrined in the case law (see, for example, Judgments 4086, consideration 11, 3488, consideration 3, and 2839, consideration 11), she or he is bound by the proper application of the relevant provisions in force. In the present case, the Organisation erred in not following the provisions in force at the time the […] decision was taken, when it created a new post without advertising the vacancy. […]

    The Organisation’s assertion that the impugned decision was lawful as it was based on its general power to restructure its services, in its generality, is not acceptable. The Organisation’s wide discretion still requires it to be exercised within the limits of the general principles of law and the existing provisions; otherwise, it becomes a way to circumvent the provisions in force, leading to arbitrariness. At the time the [transfer] decision was taken, there was no provision in the Service Regulations which allowed the EPO to reassign an employee, together with her or his post, to duties corresponding to her or his grade, or which allowed the EPO to create and fill a new post without following the provisions regarding transfers and creation of posts. […]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 963, 2575, 2839, 3488

    Keywords:

    applicable law; patere legem; reorganisation; transfer;



  • Judgment 4266


    129th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his requests for a transfer.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; transfer;



  • 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 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 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 4084


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her and the appointment of another staff member without a competitive recruitment process.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment without competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    On the merits, it is convenient to recall that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules. The discretion includes making decisions relating to the structure of the organization, its departments, divisions or sections, including their restructuring to meet policy objectives, as well as decisions relating to the creation and abolition of posts and the transfer of staff as a part of the process. Firm precedent has it that such decisions are consequently subjected to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether the decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; rest upon a mistake of fact or law or whether they amount to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decisions as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2742, under 34, and 3488, under 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3488

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; transfer;



  • Judgment 3996


    126th Session, 2018
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to investigate her claim of harassment, the decision to permanently transfer her and the decision to offer her an extension of appointment in her new position.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; extension of contract; harassment; transfer;

    Consideration 4J

    Extract:

    [T]he Executive Secretary’s discretionary power with respect to a transfer must necessarily yield to the objective appearance of a conflict of interest; even more, considering that the complainant herself had requested the written commitment, and that the conflict of interest cannot be superseded by a commitment or an agreement.

    Keywords:

    conflict of interest; discretion; transfer;



  • Judgment 3936


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who held the grade P-5 post of Head of UNESCO’s National Office in Kinshasa, challenges the decision to transfer her to Paris.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer;



  • Judgment 3699


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him to a Senior Advisor post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer;



  • Judgment 3686


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; reassignment; transfer;



  • Judgment 3663


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant alleges that his dignity was impaired in the context of his various transfers.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; respect for dignity; transfer;



  • Judgment 3662


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer to another post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; transfer;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that the reasons given to the complainant for the decision to transfer him are confined to very general references to the applicable provisions. Such references are, however, meaningless if they are not accompanied by more precise information enabling the official and, possibly, the judge to comprehend the real grounds underpinning the decision taken, especially in the case of a measure, such as that of transferring an official, which should be hedged with safeguards.

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, the reasons for any decision having an adverse effect, such as a transfer decision, must be stated. The reasons may be contained in the notice given to the official of the decision or in some other document. The Tribunal also accepts that the reasons may be provided in prior proceedings, or orally, or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 1590, under 7, 1757, under 5, and 3316, under 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    It follows [...] that the complainant had been given explanations enabling him to comment on his new duties in detail and in full knowledge of the facts before the decision of 11 June 2013. That decision therefore satisfied the requirements of the Tribunal’s case law regarding the need to provide reasons (see Judgments 1817, under 6, 2391, under 7, or 2850, under 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 2391, 2850

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, every transfer must respect the general principles governing decisions affecting an official’s status. In order to respect the official’s dignity, it is not enough for the person concerned to retain her or his grade and remuneration; care must also be taken to ensure that the new post provides 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, in particular, Judgment 2856, under 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2856

    Keywords:

    respect for dignity; transfer;



  • Judgment 3660


    122nd Session, 2016
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his transfer, complaining that he was ousted from his job, without notice or prior consultation, and assigned to a “fictitious job”.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; transfer;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, the reasons for any decision having an adverse effect, such as a transfer decision, must be stated. The reasons may be contained in the notice given to the official of the decision or in some other document. The Tribunal also accepts that the reasons may be provided in prior proceedings, or orally, or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge. (See Judgments 1590, under 7, 1757, under 5, and 3316, under 7.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 3316

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    According to the case law, for the sake of proper management and mutual trust, an organisation must treat its staff fairly. To this end, it must give an official the opportunity of a fair hearing. (See Judgments 2226, under 20, and 1234, under 19.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1234, 2226

    Keywords:

    transfer;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the reasons given to the complainant in this document to justify the decision to transfer him are confined to very general references to the applicable provisions. Such references are, however, meaningless if they are not accompanied by more precise information enabling the official and, as the case may be, the judge to comprehend the real grounds underpinning the decision taken, especially in the case of a measure, such as that of transferring an official, which should be hedged with safeguards.

    Keywords:

    motivation; transfer;



  • Judgment 3607


    121st Session, 2016
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Director-Advisor, Office of the Deputy Director General, Development Sector.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; transfer;



  • Judgment 3581


    121st Session, 2016
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss her for serious misconduct.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is true, as the complainant argues, that she was entitled to be told of the reasons for her transfer (see Judgment 2839, consideration 11)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2839

    Keywords:

    transfer;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "The complainant was obliged to comply with the transfer decision and a refusal to do so could have justified summary dismissal. In at least two earlier decisions the Tribunal has said that the failure of an international civil servant to abide by and give effect to a decision to transfer her or him, might justify their dismissal (see Judgments 154 and 325)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 154, 325

    Keywords:

    transfer;

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


 
Last updated: 28.11.2022 ^ top