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

Bias (572,-666)

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

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



  • 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 10

    Extract:

    If a complainant alleges that a decision was not taken in good faith or was taken for an improper purpose, she or he bears the burden of establishing the lack of good faith, bias or improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4146, consideration 10, 3743, consideration 12, and 2472, consideration 9). It is a serious allegation that must be clearly substantiated.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 3743, 4146

    Keywords:

    bad faith; bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 4170


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance reports for the 2010-2011 biennium and the decisions to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2012, to withhold that increment on that date and to not renew her fixed-term appointment for unsatisfactory service.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in CAP 403 in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, and the Appeals Board noted that the complainant “makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”. However, the Appeals Board failed to respond to these allegations, perhaps considering the flaws that it had identified sufficient to substantiate its recommendations. The Appeals Board did not therefore ascertain whether the complainant’s unfavourable performance rating and the non-renewal of her appointment owed to prejudice or other extraneous factor, as required under paragraph 5(b) of the Board’s Statutes, which was hence breached. Furthermore, that provision merely illustrates the general principles that apply in this matter, regardless of whether they are laid down in any rule or regulation.

    Keywords:

    bias; performance evaluation;



  • Judgment 4097


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of proof in establishing bias or personal prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 4010


    126th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his performance appraisals for 2012 and the decisions to renew his fixed-term appointment for a period of six months rather than one year and, subsequently, not to renew it beyond its expiry.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The complainant bears the burden of establishing bias and has failed to do so (see, for example, Judgment 3753, consideration 13).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3753

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 4001


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The following basic principles as stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, guide the Tribunal where a decision such as this is challenged:
    “The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and 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 (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
    A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1827, consideration 6:
    “The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”
    However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
    “When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law. [...] The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. See Judgments 107[...], 729 [...], 1071 [...], 1077 [...], 1158 [...], 1223 [...] and 1359 [...].”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 3652

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3960


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision in which the Administrative Council decided to further maintain his suspension while reducing his salary by half until a final decision had been made in his case.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    In this case, concurring with Judgment 3958, the ratio decidendi is the following: as it might reasonably be thought that the President was directly, specifically and individually offended by the misconduct for which the complainant was charged, he could not take part in any individual proceedings regarding the allegedly identified author of the alleged misconduct. The President’s participation in these proceedings has given rise to the unlawfulness of the individual decisions impugned with the Tribunal.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958

    Keywords:

    bias; conflict of interest; decision quashed;



  • Judgment 3958


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a member of an EPO Board of Appeal, contests a decision in which the Administrative Council decided to impose upon him several measures in relation to an alleged misconduct.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    In the present case, there is a conflict of interest on the part of the President. It stems from the fact that the alleged serious misconduct, with which the complainant was charged, might reasonably be thought to have offended the President specifically, directly and individually. This situation, by itself, casts doubts on the President’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the President would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. The argument raised by the President in his opinion to the Council (CA/C 6/15) [...], namely that pursuant to the applicable rules the President was acting within his competence and had the power and duty to take all necessary steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the Office, is immaterial. The question of a conflict of interest only arises if the official is competent. Accordingly, the question of competency is not an answer to a charge of a conflict of interest. Hence, the Administrative Council erred in not finding that the President had a conflict of interest in the matter. In this situation, in accordance with the provisions in force, the Administrative Council should have sent the matter back to the next most senior official to exercise authority instead of the President, who was precluded from exercising authority because of his conflict of interest (see Judgement 2892, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892

    Keywords:

    bias; conflict of interest;



  • Judgment 3927


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The complainant asserts that the Director General was biased against her and that his decision to suspend her was vitiated by malice against her for her role as a staff representative. These allegations are unfounded. She has not provided any persuasive evidence to substantiate them, whereas the consistent case law of the Tribunal requires that such allegations be proved, since bias and bad faith cannot be presumed (see Judgments 3886, consideration 8, and 3738, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3738, 3886

    Keywords:

    bad faith; bias; burden of proof;



  • Judgment 3914


    125th Session, 2018
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he burden to prove discrimination and bias rests with the complainant [...].

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; discrimination;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal relevantly stated the following in Judgment 1775, consideration 7:
    “Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; evidence; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 3753


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    WHO argues in its reply, correctly, that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of personal prejudice though it acknowledges, again correctly, that evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and may rest on inferences drawn from all the circumstances (see Judgments 958, consideration 5, 1775, consideration 7, and 3380, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 958, 1775, 3380

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 3601


    121st Session, 2016
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decisions not to promote him to a post of Inspection Team Leader and not to designate him as an Acting Team Leader.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    "It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that it is incumbent upon an international organisation to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgments 2096, under 9, or 2792, under 7). Moreover, this approach is particularly appropriate in the instant case where the facts needed to prove this matter lie peculiarly in the knowledge of the Organisation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2792

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; patere legem; personal prejudice; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 3586


    121st Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 1775, under 7, reiterated in Judgments 3192, under 13, and 3314, under 9 for example:
    “Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where [...] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3192, 3314

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 3501


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Deputy Director of WIPO’s Communications Division.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; complaint dismissed; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;



  • Judgment 3500


    120th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants contest the decision to transfer another staff member to the post of Head of the Executive Education Program.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; bias; complaint dismissed; discretion; joinder; misuse of authority; transfer;



  • Judgment 3422


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    [The complainant submits that] the composition of the selection panel was flawed. One member of the panel was a person who had been two levels below him in the administrative hierarchy and the complainant had sided with this person’s first level supervisor in not increasing her performance rating. She was thus, the complainant submits, “in a conflicted position”. The complainant also points to the fact that the majority of the members of the selection panel were more junior than him and not able to effectively evaluate his qualifications, experience and performance. Also, changes were made to the recruitment panel which he had not been afforded the opportunity to challenge. Several other specific complaints were made by the complainant about the selection process. However what the complainant singularly fails to do is demonstrate that it is probable some or a number of members
    of the selection panel were biased against him or that the panel or selection process was otherwise flawed.

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; selection board;



  • Judgment 3380


    118th Session, 2014
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post following a competition and alleges perpetual administrative bias towards him.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see Judgment 2472, under 9). It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 3208


    115th Session, 2013
    International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his contract following the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "As the Tribunal has noted, the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants (see Judgment 2781). If the ultimate decision-maker rejects the conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body, the decision-maker is obliged to provide adequate reasons (see Judgments 2278, 2355, 2699, 2807 and 3042). The value of the safeguard is significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority can reject conclusions and recommendations of the internal appeal body without explaining why. If adequate reasons are not required, then room emerges for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2278, 2355, 2699, 2781, 2807, 3042

    Keywords:

    bias; case law; decision; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; grounds; impugned decision; internal appeals body; motivation of final decision; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; refusal; safeguard;



  • Judgment 3192


    114th Session, 2013
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and not to renew her contract as linked to the harassment she allegedly experienced.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    Consistent case law holds that:
    “[a]lthough evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where […] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification.” (See Judgment 1775, under 7.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775

    Keywords:

    bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice;



  • Judgment 3184


    114th Session, 2013
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend him without pay, alleging that it was taken in breach of the rule against double jeopardy.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    "The complainant objected, in his memorandum to the Secretary of the Appeals Committee, that three members of the Committee had already considered the same facts in a previous appeal. [...] The Tribunal considers that the specific rule relating to disqualification of members of the Appeals Committee stated in Manual paragraph 331.2.31 is not a complete and exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which a member is disqualified from hearing an appeal. The fundamental function of the internal appeal procedure, which is “an important safeguard of staff rights and social harmony” (see Judgment 1317, under 31), requires that “the members of an internal appeal body should not only be impartial and objective in fact, but that they should so conduct themselves and be so circumstanced that a reasonable person in possession of the facts would not think otherwise. In this last regard, it is necessary only to observe that staff confidence in internal appeal procedures is essential to the workings of all international organisations and to preventing disputes from going outside those organisations” (see Judgment 2671, under 11). If a member of the Appeals Committee had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new Appeals Committee to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Manual paragraph 331.2.31
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 267, 1317

    Keywords:

    bias; composition of the internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; safeguard;

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


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top