Judgment 3127
113th Session, 2012
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[W]here an internal appeal is lodged within the required time limit but fails to comply with the formal requirements set down in the applicable rules, it is for the organisation, in the exercise of its duty of care, to enable the complainant to correct the appeal by granting him or her a reasonable period of time in which to do so."
Keywords:
breach; correction of complaint; duty of care; duty of discretion; formal flaw; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; time limit; written rule;
Judgment 3055
112th Session, 2012
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[A]s a general rule, an organisation should refrain from passing on damaging information about a staff member. If the recipient of that information has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth [...] it should refrain from passing on damaging information without first giving the staff member an opportunity to challenge it and give his or her own account."
Keywords:
communication to third party; duty of care; duty of discretion; injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; rebuttal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 97-99
Extract:
The complainant argues that she was discharged from the continuing obligation of confidentiality when her employment was unlawfully terminated.
"There is no doubt that an international civil servant is under an obligation of discretion (see Judgments 1608 and 1732)."
"In the present case, the complainant had unsuccessfully availed herself of internal appeal procedures with respect to the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of IAS, her attempt to raise her claim of harassment had been rejected as 'abusive and ill driven' without investigation and her request for review of the decision not to renew her contract led to her summary dismissal. In these circumstances, it is to be doubted that there was a continuing obligation of complete discretion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1608, 1732
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords:
candidate; duty of discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; organisation's duties; selection board;
Judgment 2114
92nd Session, 2002
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"When the measure takes the form of a reprimand, the Tribunal will exercise a limited power of review. It will not interfere 'unless the measure was taken without authority, or violates a rule of form or procedure, or is based on an error of fact or of law, or if essential facts have not been taken into consideration, or if it is tainted with abuse of authority, or if a clearly mistaken conclusion has been drawn from the facts'. (see Judgment 274, [...], under 2.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 274
Keywords:
abuse of power; censure; conduct; decision-maker; disciplinary measure; disregard of essential fact; duty of discretion; formal flaw; freedom of speech; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 1732
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Where a staff member is as highly placed as was the complainant, so that his views might naturally be taken as those of the Organization, the administration must have the ability to prevent such staff member from degrading its reputation. While there can be no doubt that the Organization has a duty to respect its staff members' professional dignity and reputation, that duty is limited by the Organization's corresponding right to require staff members not to promote policies or theories which it believes to be wrong or mistaken."
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1608
82nd Session, 1997
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant had two obligations. First, he had to observe the hierarchical channels of communication if he wanted to refer a matter to the Organisation's decision-making bodies. Secondly, Article 17 of the Regulations required him to exercise discretion in the use of information that came to his knowledge in the course of duty. Since he acted in breach of both of those obligations the reprimand was fully justified."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 17 OF EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
censure; disciplinary measure; duty of discretion; proportionality; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; supervisor;
Judgment 1128
71st Session, 1991
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
Two police reports show that the complainant was held in disfavour by the local authorities at two duty stations. As a result his appointment was not renewed. "On the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied not only that the Organization's doubts about the complainant were legitimate but also that it was free to conclude that he was unsuitable for future assignments and, more particularly, to fear that, if granted any further assignment, he might not, as was his duty under [Regulation] 301.014, behave 'in a manner befitting [his] status' as an international civil servant and with proper 'reserve and tact'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO STAFF REGULATION 301.014
Keywords:
conduct; contract; duty of discretion; fitness for international civil service; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1115
71st Session, 1991
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The reason why the complainant was given an unsatisfactory rating for conduct was that, as he does not deny, he had disclosed his superior's 'day'. That was a clear breach of Regulation 1.7", which bars officials from communicating information known to them by reason of their official position which has not been made public.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WIPO STAFF REGULATION 1.7
Keywords:
communication to third party; conduct; confidential evidence; duty of discretion; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1061
70th Session, 1991
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Freedom of speech must be protected particularly for officers of a staff association, so that they are not hampered in their task of representing the membership when in dispute with the administration. But there are limits on such freedom. A staff representative's public statements must not impair the dignity of the international civil service: indeed he is under a special obligation not to abuse his rights by using expressions or resorting to behaviour incompatible with the decorum appropriate to his status both as an international civil servant and as an elected staff representative." (Vide Judgments 87 and 911.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 87, 911
Keywords:
conduct; duty of discretion; fitness for international civil service; freedom of speech; staff member's duties; staff representative; staff union;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"In taking part in the radio interview the complainant was in direct breach of Rule 302.155. Staff representatives are not exempted from observance of the Rules by reason of holding office in the Union. [...] Such deliberate airing of staff grievances in public is conduct likely to jeopardize the reputation of the FAO and its staff. The conclusion is that the charge [of misconduct] is proven and warranted dismissal."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: FAO STAFF RULE 302.155
Keywords:
duty of discretion; freedom of speech; misconduct; organisation's reputation; staff representative; termination of employment;
Judgment 911
64th Session, 1988
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to precedent, a staff association enjoys special rights that include broad freedom of speech and the right to take to task the administration of the organisation whose employees it represents. Like any other freedom, however, freedom of speech has its bounds. A staff association may not resort in public to action that impairs the dignity of the international civil service, save that the degree of discretion required of it is not as great as is expected of an individual staff member: both law and practice allow it wider freedom of speech and only gross abuse will be inadmissible."
Keywords:
collective rights; duty of discretion; freedom of association; freedom of speech; limits; staff member's duties;
Judgment 901
64th Session, 1988
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"When an international official on mission shows professional shortcomings or fails in his duty of 'reserve' the government may of course ask the organisation to withdraw him. But termination is not the inevitable outcome. For one thing, so long as the contract is in force the Director-General does not have discretionary authority; for another, he may discuss the matter with the government [...] In any case even when the organisation acquiesces it need not terminate the appointment on that account."
Keywords:
consequence; discretion; duty of discretion; field; misconduct; organisation's duties; persona non grata; project personnel; termination of employment;
Judgment 635
54th Session, 1984
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant denies that she was ever in gross breach of the duty of discretion. She claims never to have been in touch with journalists neither herself nor through anyone else. "She can go no further than that since it is impossible to adduce evidence to rebut the charge. Her statement that she did not commit the misconduct she is charged with shifts the burden of proof to the organization. The Tribunal will not require absolute proof, which is almost impossible to provide on such a matter." A set of precise and concurring presumptions would be sufficient.
Keywords:
burden of proof; duty of discretion; evidence; misconduct; organisation; presumption of innocence; serious misconduct; standard of proof;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization accuses the complainant of gross breach of her duty of discretion. It contends that she was directly responsible for leaking information to the press which resulted in newspaper articles. "The three articles take the complainant's side and put the organization in a bad light. But [...] this is not enough to create precise and concurring presumptions which might afford justification for the [dismissal] decision."
Keywords:
duty of discretion; misconduct; organisation's reputation; presumption of innocence; serious misconduct; termination of employment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the material provisions of the Staff Regulations, staff members must exercise the utmost discretion in all matters of official business. The dispute between the complainant and the organization did not concern official matters. "The staff member believed, rightly or wrongly, that she had suffered injustice and she was not bound to absolute secrecy. In any case fellow staff and her family and friends outside the FAO must have known she had been suspended from duty."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; duty of discretion; purport;
Judgment 429
45th Session, 1980
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
Statutory provisions prohibit officials from disclosing information not already made public or from disclosing, without permission from the Director-General, in any legal proceedings information of which they have knowledge by reason of their duties. Such permission will be refused only when the interests of the organisation so require. On the strength of these provisions the organisation requests the withdrawal of certain items. "The provisions cited [...] govern the relationship between the [organisation] and its staff [...]. They are not binding on the Tribunal since no Staff Regulations may limit the Tribunal's competence to determine whether written evidence is admissible."
Keywords:
admissibility of evidence; competence of tribunal; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; duty of discretion;
Judgment 427
45th Session, 1980
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The question of the candidacy of a staff member for the office of director of the organization must be resolved by the Staff Regulations. "They might forbid staff members from standing as candidates or restrict their activities if they do stand. But, in the absence of an express regulation, a staff member is entitled to think that he is bound only by those standards of propriety to be observed by the candidates generally; otherwise the electoral processes would be unfair."
Keywords:
candidate; conduct; duty of discretion; election; enforcement; executive head; official; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 210
30th Session, 1973
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the four crucial representations were false; the complainant bore responsibility for the four misrepresentations and they could have had serious consequences for relations between the organization and the government, all of which constitutes misconduct. But the complainant's motives were not corrupt and his previous record was satisfactory. Account should have been taken of attenuating circumstances. Summary dismissal was out of all proportion to the degree of misbehaviour.
Keywords:
contract; duty of discretion; fixed-term; misrepresentation; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 136
22nd Session, 1969
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was suspended from his duties on the ground that he allegedly misused office facilities to spread unfounded allegations. "This suspension does not fall within any of the cases [covered by the Staff Regulations] and, in the particular circumstances of the case, is in fact a disciplinary measure. The organization has therefore committed a breach of contract by suspending [the] complainant otherwise than in accordance with the Staff Regulations".
Keywords:
breach; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; duty of discretion; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; provision; staff regulations and rules; suspension;
Judgment 111
17th Session, 1967
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainant made use of statements in the proceedings before the Tribunal "as tracts designed to discredit [the organisation] and the Administrative Tribunal." His actions could not have been directed to defending his freedom and rights. They were undoubtedly related to "activities exercised by [him] as an official of the organisation; as such they constituted serious misconduct and were consequently such as to justify the legal application of a disciplinary sanction [...] the free choice of the sanction to be imposed was within the Director-General's discretion."
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; discretion; duty of discretion; organisation's reputation; serious misconduct; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 87
15th Session, 1965
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4 (I)
Extract:
"In the light of the terms actually used by the complainant, it cannot be asserted that in presenting this demand he was refusing to follow the procedure legally applicable to relations with the staff; at the most he was challenging its effectiveness. Furthermore, without it being necessary to consider whether this demand in itself implied some lack of the proper discretion which the complainant was bound to observe towards the Director-General, the fact that he made it did not in any case amount to an act of insubordination or impertinence."
Keywords:
duty of discretion; insubordination; staff claim; staff representative;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant, a trade union official, made criticisms which were included in a tract. "The conduct which was deemed to justify [his] summary dismissal did not constitute misconduct serious enough to jeopardise or to be likely to jeopardise the reputation of the organization or its staff." Summary dismissal was not justified.
Keywords:
contract; duty of discretion; material damages; misconduct; moral injury; permanent appointment; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff representative; staff union activity; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 65
11th Session, 1962
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant, a public information officer, received an invitation mistakenly bearing his name to a diplomatic dinner party. In disclosing to press correspondents the details of a conversation on this subject with his chief, the complainant violated his obligations, "having regard both to the fact that the information related to a matter of official business which should have remained privy to the organization and to the fact that the information so disclosed was such as might harm the prestige of the United Nations."
Keywords:
duty of discretion; organisation's reputation; staff member's duties;
