|
|
 |
|
|
Supervisor (499,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Supervisor
Total judgments found: 77
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
Judgment 4453
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal accepts that, generally, the conduct and attitude of a hierarchical superior does not exculpate a member of staff who has engaged in misconduct even though it is approved by that superior. It also accepts, as decided in Judgment 3083, that a member of staff whose duties included dealing with and managing the funds or other property of an organisation should adhere to normative legal or other instructional documents concerning how those funds and property should be disbursed and managed. Moreover, a failure to do so could well warrant summary dismissal. Additionally, that failure could be characterised as a serious breach of trust.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3083
Keywords:
mitigating circumstances; supervisor;
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 6
Extract:
An international organisation has wide discretion with regard to the organisation of its services and the complainant has failed to establish that the supervision arrangement was not justified by the interests and capacities of the service. The Tribunal finds nothing irregular in a staff member reporting to another who holds the same grade (see Judgment 4084, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4084
Keywords:
supervisor;
Judgment 3692
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant who, at the material time, was working as a patent examiner, objects to three of his staff reports, submits that he was subjected to harassment and challenges the rejection of his request for an independent examination of several of his dissenting opinions on patent applications.
Consideration 14
Extract:
[I]t is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that if the rules of an international organisation require that an appraisal form must be signed not only by the direct supervisor of the staff member concerned but also by her or his second-level supervisor, this is designed to guarantee oversight, at least prima facie, of the objectivity of the report. The purpose of such a rule is to ensure that responsibilities are shared between these two authorities and that the staff member who is being appraised is shielded from a biased assessment by a supervisor, who should not be the only person issuing an opinion on the staff member’s skills and performance. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the competent second-level supervisor should take care to ascertain that the assessment submitted for her or his approval does not require modification (see Judgment 320, under 12, 13 and 17, or more recently Judgments 3171, under 22, and 3239, under 15). Of course, this check must be carried out with particular vigilance when the assessment occurs in a context where it is especially to be feared that the supervisor making it might lack objectivity and, a fortiori, when it takes place, as it did in the instant case, in a situation of overt antagonism (see Judgment 3171, under 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 320, 3171, 3239
Keywords:
organisation's duties; performance evaluation; performance report; supervisor;
Judgment 3488
120th Session, 2015
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s decision to transfer him, asserting that his transfer was the result of harassment and retaliation.
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
There is [...] evidence that, notwithstanding these internal problems in the AIS, the complainant suffered harassment by conduct that was not simply subsumed in the foregoing general dysfunctional circumstances. The evidence shows that the complainant’s first level supervisor was to some extent responsible for the delay in the extension of the complainant’s contract. It also shows that the complainant invariably did not receive written responses to his work-related reports. It also shows that, contrary to Staff Rule 530, his first-level supervisor often did not meet with him to discuss technical and administrative matters. In some instances, he left Mr L. to carry out first-level supervisory duties with regard to the complainant, when Mr L. had no supervisory relationship with the complainant. There is also evidence that the complainant was not given the financial resources that he should have received to permit him to carry out his assigned responsibilities. The evidence also shows that his first-level supervisor did not conduct a proper PPES review for the complainant in 2003 or a feasibility review, as required, but then requested only a one-year contract extension on the ground of inadequate performance and poor conduct.
The foregoing is evidence of conduct which a reasonable person would have found offensive, demeaning, humiliating and embarrassing thus constituting harassment in the terms set out in the Appendix to PAHO’s Policy on Harassment. Accordingly, the complainant’s claim that he suffered harassment is well founded.
Keywords:
harassment; supervisor;
Judgment 3268
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the establishment of a staff report containing negative comments.
Considerations 9, 12 and 13
Extract:
"Assessment of an employee’s merit during a specified period involves a value judgement; for this reason, the Tribunal must recognise the discretionary authority of the bodies responsible for conducting such an assessment. Of course, it must ascertain whether the marks given to the employee have been worked out in full conformity with the rules, but it cannot substitute its own opinion for these bodies’ assessment of the qualities, performance and conduct of the person concerned. The Tribunal will therefore interfere in this field only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 2834, under 7, and 3006, under 7). This limitation on the Tribunal’s power of review naturally applies to both the mark given in a staff report and the comments accompanying that mark in the report."
"The restraint which the Tribunal must exercise [...] does not mean that it can disregard the fact that the comment accompanying the complainant’s productivity rating considerably detracts from the marking “good” and that the countersigning officer’s comments underscore that effect. [...] It follows from the foregoing that the [...] disputed staff report must be set aside."
Keywords:
discretion; performance evaluation; rating; supervisor;
Judgment 3185
114th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
"In principle, a supervisor cannot be criticised for recording the mistakes and errors of a subordinate with a view to preparing that person’s periodical performance evaluation, provided that the purpose of that action is, on the one hand, to ensure that the rating will be objective and, on the other hand, to increase the service’s efficiency by improving the performance of the person concerned. In the instant case, however, it is plain from the evidence that this practice was consistently applied to the complainant in order to stigmatise her shortcomings. [...] Her [evaluation] report is thus tainted with a serious flaw which justifies that it be set aside".
Keywords:
breach; equal treatment; flaw; organisation's interest; performance report; purpose; rating; supervisor; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 3115
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant alleges that senior officials misappropriated funds to the detriment of poor countries. "However, in raising that allegation before the Tribunal, she overlooks the fact that the competence of the Tribunal is clearly and exhaustively defined in Article II of its Statute, from which it follows that the Tribunal cannot interfere either with the policies of the international organisations which have recognised its competence, or with the workings of their administrations, unless a violation of the rights of a staff member is in issue. International civil servants seeking to file a complaint with the Tribunal must show that the decisions they are challenging are such as to affect personal interests of theirs which are protected by the rights and safeguards deriving from the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules, or from the terms of their appointments."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; exception; iloat statute; official; organisation's reputation; provision; right; safeguard; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; vested competence; written rule;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is no reason in principle why the actions of a subordinate cannot constitute harassment of his or her supervisor, particularly where those actions consist of persistent unfounded allegations of harassment. However, just as the actions of a supervisor that serve a legitimate managerial or supervisory function do not constitute harassment, so, too, actions taken in good faith by a subordinate that serve the function of protecting his or her legitimate interests do not constitute harassment."
Keywords:
good faith; harassment; staff member's interest; supervisor;
Judgment 2836
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was not confirmed at the end of her probationary period. She submits that the assessment of her work was tainted with several flaws. She criticises her responsible chief for having taken into account the opinions expressed on her work by other officials in the department.
"The Tribunal considers that it is not per se unlawful for supervisors who have to assess an official's performance and recommend whether or not to confirm his/her appointment to ask colleagues of the person in question how they rate his/her work, as a means of helping them to form their own judgements. A supervisor must of course exercise the requisite caution and discernment when taking such opinions into account, but there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that this requirement was not satisfied in this case."
Keywords:
condition; contract; flaw; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; probationary period; recommendation; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2811
106th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Some of [the complainant's] requests clearly lie outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This is true, for example, of the requests that the Tribunal order the imposition of disciplinary measures on staff members of the Organization, that the complainant be sent a public letter of apology [...] or that a management audit of her department be conducted by independent experts. This is also true of the request that the Tribunal order the Organization to take steps to ensure that the complainant's immediate supervisor will no longer supervise her."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 968, 1591, 2605
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; disciplinary measure; receivability of the complaint; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings; supervisor;
Judgment 2724
105th Session, 2008
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Reports Board, which is set up by the Director-General and establishes its own procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations, cannot be regarded as either an internal appeals body or a judicial body. Where an official has had the opportunity to state his or her point of view before the Board and to comment on the relevant supervisors' assessments of his or her performance and conduct, the adversarial principle can reasonably be deemed to have been observed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 10.3 of the Staff Regulations of the ILO
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; advisory body; conduct; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right to reply; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2706
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, who was sexually harassed by her supervisor, wants the Tribunal to order that she be promoted. "[T]he Organization is of course right in saying that the compensation for her injuries should not take the form of being granted a higher grade. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; definition; difference; harassment; injury; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; promotion; qualifications; request by a party; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant having reported that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor, the latter was verbally reprimanded. The Organization asserts that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof with respect to her allegations of harassment. "[I]n imposing a disciplinary sanction on the complainant's supervisor on account of these acts of sexual harassment, the Organization necessarily acknowledged that they had occurred. Consequently, it cannot now dispute the merits of the complainant's accusations in this respect without completely contradicting itself and casting major doubts on whether its own decisions regarding its staff are taken in a responsible manner in such a sensitive area as that of discipline."
Keywords:
burden of proof; decision; disciplinary measure; harassment; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; reprimand; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;
Judgment 2654
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO recognise that she has been subjected to moral harassment and acknowledge all the repercussions this has had on her "human dignity and professional life". The Organization asks the Tribunal to find that there is no factual or legal basis to the complainant's claim that she notified the Administration of a case of moral harassment. The Tribunal considers "that the complainant did accuse her supervisor of harassment, and that the Organization, which was then under an obligation to initiate an objective inquiry into the validity of her accusations, failed to do so and has merely regretted the fact that it held no investigations.
By failing to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of such serious accusations, the defendant breached both its duty of care towards one of its staff members and its duty of good governance, thereby depriving the complainant of her right to be given an opportunity to prove her allegations."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; career; claim; condition; consequence; duty of care; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; working conditions; working relations;
Judgment 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
[...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;
Judgment 2562
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"The Tribunal's case law has determined that the head of an international organisation has the 'executive authority to assign staff to different posts' (Judgment 534), and 'is empowered to change the duties assigned to his subordinates' (Judgment 265)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 265, 534
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; assignment; case law; discretion; executive head; iloat; official; organisation; post; supervisor;
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of the extension of her probationary period. She criticises the way her probation was conducted. The Tribunal considers that her criticism "is not entirely unfounded. At the time she took up her duties, her predecessor had been retired for five months and staff changes continued among officials who should have been involved in training and supervising her and who were hence responsible for assessing her performance. It is clear, therefore, that during her probationary period the complainant did not enjoy the best assistance and supervision.
However regrettable these circumstances may be, they are not such as to invalidate either the decision to extend the complainant's probationary period beyond the end of 2002 or the decision to dismiss her at the end of the extension."
Keywords:
appointment; decision; extension of contract; flaw; organisation's duties; probationary period; retirement; supervisor; termination of employment; training; vacancy; work appraisal;
Judgment 2540
101st Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 30
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 442 that:
«As a rule an official's comments on his subordinates do not give them any right to compensation; otherwise supervisors would express only guarded opinions about their subordinates, and that would be harmful to the organisation's efficiency. The most that can be said is that when a supervisor expresses an opinion which he knows to be untrue for a purely malicious purpose he, or the organisation, will be liable.»
To that should be added the rider that the duty to act in good faith and, also, the duty to respect the dignity of a subordinate require that the subordinate be given an opportunity to answer any criticism made and that his or her answers or explanations be fairly considered."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 442
Keywords:
allowance; consequence; difference; equity; general principle; good faith; injury; liability; mistake of fact; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; work appraisal;
Judgment 2524
100th Session, 2006
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 32
Extract:
"Although the complainant provided the report of [her doctor] to the Joint Appeals Panel, that did not amount to implied authorisation for it to be given to [her two successive supervisors] for their comments (see Judgment 2271, under 7). There were other means available to the Administration to obtain answers from [the supervisors] to the claims made by the complainant. The disclosure to them of the medical report was a serious breach of confidence and one that, in the circumstances, was particularly insensitive."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2271
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body; medical opinion; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; supervisor;
1, 2, 3, 4 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
