Compensation (585,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Compensation
Total judgments found: 139
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3223
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision on which the Tribunal already ruled in Judgment 2881 and which is res judicata.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that, by virtue of the adversarial principle, an employer organisation may not raise an objection to an internal appeal filed by a staff member unless that person is able to express his or her views on the merits of the objection. As the [organisation] points out, Staff Rule 11.1.1, paragraph 4, makes no provision for a staff member to file a rejoinder with the Appeal Board; however, nor does it rule out this possibility, and it does not therefore preclude the submission of a rejoinder by the person concerned in accordance with the requirements of the adversarial principle. [...]
The internal appeal proceedings were [thus] tainted with a flaw which, contrary to the [organisation]’s submissions, cannot be redressed in proceedings before the Tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal will not, however, set aside the impugned decision, but it will grant the complainant compensation in the amount of 1,000 euros for the moral injury caused by this flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Paragraph 4 of ITU Staff Rule 11.1.1
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; allowance; breach; compensation; discretion; general principle; iloat; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; no provision; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; rejoinder; reply; request by a party; res judicata; right; right to reply; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3188
114th Session, 2013
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to update her job description, not to select her for a G-6 position and her alleged subsequent demotion.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that a failure to respond to a legitimate request of a staff member within a reasonable time may be deemed to be a refusal of the request if the staff member elects to accept that refusal. Additionally, egregious delay in responding to a reasonable request may involve a breach of the obligation to deal with the staff member in good faith. In the present case, the failure of the IAEA to provide the complainant with an updated job description over several years involved a violation of her rights for which she is entitled to compensation."
Keywords:
compensation; good faith; moral injury; organisation's duties; refusal; request by a party; terms of appointment;
Judgment 3173
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the refusal to grant her compensation for an illness which she considers as attributable to the performance of her official duties.
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The approach of the Organization, which is a reflection of the position adopted by the Managing Director, involves an assumption which would not, in all cases, be correct. The assumption is that work-related stress said by an employee to be the result of abuse and harassment, can only arise if, as an objective fact, there has been abuse and harassment. Such an approach takes no account of the possibility that stress can be the product of perceptions and not reality. Put slightly differently, an employee may be exposed to conduct which, viewed objectively, would not be characterised as abuse and harassment. But it does not follow that exposure to that conduct could not induce work-related stress in an employee who perceived that conduct as abusive and harassing. For this reason the answer to the question that was to be considered by the independent panel, i.e. whether the complainant had been subjected to “constant harassment and abuse” by her supervisor would not necessarily have answered the question raised by the complainant’s claim for compensation considered by the [Advisory Board on Compensation Claims]. Her claim raised the question of whether her supervisor’s conduct caused a stress-related illness not whether his conduct, viewed objectively, could be characterised as abuse and harassment."
Keywords:
advisory body; compensation; harassment; injury; service-incurred; working conditions;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint dismissed; illness; service-incurred;
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.
Considerations 18 and 19
Extract:
"[T]he JAC made a finding of procedural irregularities in relation to the consideration of the complainant’s grievances. It recognised, as this Tribunal has stated, that an organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment (see Judgment 3071). This conclusion would have warranted consideration of a remedy. However, the JAC adopted the approach, accepted by the Secretary General, that the Federation had “acted in the [complainant’s] favour” because the contract of [the alleged harasser], amongst others, had not been renewed.
The non-renewal of [that person]’s contract did not involve a vindication of the complainant’s rights. Ordinarily, the mechanism for addressing the violation of a person’s rights is to award compensation to the aggrieved person or to make an order restoring the person to the position he or she would have been in but for the violation. The nonrenewal of the contract of a person who had violated a complainant’s rights may, of course, provide moral comfort to the complainant. However, the task of the Secretary General is to determine a response in relation to a grievance formally raised and established which remedies the effect of the proven violation of rights. The non-renewal of a contract, such as occurred in the present case, does not serve this purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; compensation; contract; decision; executive head; harassment; injury; material injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3160
114th Session, 2013
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
"As to the compensation for the delay, it is well established that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and with regard to the care owed by an international organisation to its staff (see, in particular, Judgment 2522). Furthermore, it has been said by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902 that “by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable”. The time an appeal might reasonably take will usually depend on the particular circumstances. The Director-General recognised that the time taken in this case, a little over two years, was excessive and awarded moral damages. As noted earlier, both the complainant and UNIDO dispute the quantum of damages awarded by the Director-General for delay.
The amount of compensation for unreasonable delay will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated as lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal. Delay in an internal appeal concerning a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant would be likely to be less injurious to the appellant than delay in an appeal concerning an issue of fundamental importance and seriousness in its impact on the appellant. For example, an extensive delay in relation to an appeal concerning the dismissal of a staff member could have a profound impact on his or her circumstances. On the other hand, a delay of precisely the same period in relation to an appeal concerning a comparatively trifling issue may have limited or possibly even no impact on the circumstances of the staff member."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2522, 2902
Keywords:
compensation; damages; delay; effect; general principle; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reasonable time; staff member's interest; time limit;
Judgment 3154
114th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The ITU applies for interpretation of paragraph 2 of the decision in Judgment 2958 concerning the definition of "gross salary" for the calculation of termination indemnity.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The ordinary meaning of 'gross salary' is the full amount of a staff member’s regular remuneration including allowances, overtime pay, commissions and bonuses, and any other amount usually paid, before any deductions are made. In context, the notion of 'gross salary' was chosen to indicate the base salary prior to the staff deduction, plus all allowances and benefits. This interpretation is consistent with the fact that the award of damages had to be the equivalent of reinstatement and that the express purpose was to compensate the complainant for the time he 'should have worked with the Union'."
Keywords:
amount; application for interpretation; compensation; gross salary; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; material damages;
Judgment 3130
113th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The complainant requests an award of 10,000 United States dollars for unreasonable delays in the internal appeal proceedings. The appeal before the Regional Board of Appeal lasted only nine months from the date of appeal [...] to the date of the decision by the Regional Director [...] to endorse the Board’s recommendation [...]. The complainant’s appeal before the [Headquarters Board of Appeal] lasted just over 13 months from the date of appeal [...] to the decision by the Director-General [...]. Considering that the two appeals took less than two years to complete, the complainant cannot be considered to have suffered from inordinate delays meriting an award of damages. This is especially true considering that the two tiered appeal process has provided him with greater protection of his rights as a staff member."
Keywords:
administrative delay; claim; compensation; date; decision; executive head; internal appeal; material damages; official; reasonable time; recommendation; refusal; right;
Judgment 3128
113th Session, 2012
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant is [...] entitled to moral damages in the amount of 5,000 [Swiss] francs for the failure of the Executive Board to provide reasons for its decision to reject his appeal."
Keywords:
breach; compensation; duty to substantiate decision; executive body; grounds; internal appeal; moral injury; refusal;
Judgment 3114
113th Session, 2012
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
A year and a half passed following the recommendations before a final decision was reached, and that decision was obtained only after the complainant had lodged an application for execution with the Tribunal. "This delay is manifestly unreasonable. The complainant will be awarded an indemnity, which it is fair to set at 2,000 euros, for the moral injury she has thus been caused."
Keywords:
administrative delay; allowance; application for execution; compensation; decision; internal appeals body; moral injury; reasonable time; recommendation;
Judgment 3092
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It must [...] be observed that, by any standards, a delay of 42 months in completing the processing of a compensation claim [...] is unreasonable."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 3079
112th Session, 2012
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensation; complaint allowed; complaint dismissed; decision quashed; overtime;
Judgment 3069
112th Session, 2012
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Although the complainant’s claim before the Joint Grievance Panel included a claim for “[s]uch other relief that [it] deem[ed] necessary, equitable and just”, that formula could not convert his claim for compensation in the amount of one Swiss franc – a claim for symbolic damages – into a claim for actual and moral damages as now sought. Accordingly, that claim is irreceivable and must be dismissed (see Judgment 2837, under 3, and the cases there cited). [I]t is to be remembered that, by Article VIII of its Statute, the Tribunal's powers are to rescind impugned decisions, to order the performance of obligations and to award compensation. As pointed out in Judgment 2636, under 16, the Tribunal is not empowered to order apologies. Nor is it empowered to order a staff member, who is not even a party to the proceedings before it, to withdraw his or her previous statements.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2636, 2837
Keywords:
compensation; competence of tribunal; new claim;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the investigation ordered by the Director-General of the ILO into her allegations of harassment was considerably delayed. The ILO admits that "the delay in holding the investigation is inexcusable". Nevertheless, it considers that "[t]he complainant's claims in this respect are [...] groundless", since 3,000 Swiss francs were awarded as compensation for this delay.
"The Tribunal considers, however, that even if such a sum had been paid promptly and accepted by the complainant, which is not the case, the Organization could not shed its responsibility for the considerable delay in holding the investigation by simply deciding to award the complainant compensation for the injury suffered [...]. The ILO holds that the delay is due, not to the Administration's wish to harm the complainant, but to an error. In the Tribunal's opinion, this fact likewise does not exonerate the Organization or lessen its responsibility, since the error was committed by its Administration. As the [internal appeals body] rightly noted in its report [...] more than 15 months after the Director General's decision there was no information as to the progress of the investigation, or the date on which the investigator would submit his report. Consequently, it must be found that the delay in conducting the investigation caused the complainant moral injury which must be redressed."
Keywords:
acceptance; administrative delay; allowance; compensation; date; delay; duty to inform; harassment; injury; inquiry; internal appeals body; investigation; liability; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; report;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. 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 (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3038
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
Failure of the parties to reach agreement on the amount of compensation owed to the complainant for the termination of his appointment following a flawed reassignment procedure.
"The Tribunal finds that the inordinate delay on the part of the Organization, and its conduct during the negotiations, do not reflect the duty that is incumbent on an organisation to negotiate in good faith, or the care it should take in the implementation of a decision. These matters warrant an award of moral damages."
Keywords:
compensation; conduct; delay; duty of care; good faith; moral injury; organisation; organisation's duties; settlement out of court;
Consideration 21
Extract:
"As the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a negotiated settlement, remitting the matter to [the Organization] to resolve the matter of compensation would be futile and would result in further unwarranted delay in the resolution of the dispute. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will itself determine the relief to which the complainant is entitled [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; delay; order; settlement out of court;
Judgment 3023
111th Session, 2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects the plea that the non-observance of the time-limits for the filing of the internal appeal was due to reasons beyond the complainant's control.
"[T]he complainant claims that she has suffered injury due to the delay in the internal appeals proceedings. The Tribunal notes that the internal appeal took approximately 17 months. Given that the only issue considered in the appeal process was receivability, the Tribunal agrees that there has been undue delay for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complainant; delay; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2976
110th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[I]n Judgment 2533 the Tribunal observed that compensation for injury properly included 'past and future adaptations to the complainant's house and car' and that those expenses were 'on no different footing than other necessary expenses incurred as a consequence of [...] service related injury'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2533
Keywords:
compensation; definition; disability benefit; health insurance; injury; insurance; medical expenses; service-incurred;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The purpose of insurance is to indemnify, whether in whole or in part, and not simply to provide a social safety net."
Keywords:
compensation; health insurance; insurance; medical expenses; purpose;
Judgment 2935
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant claims punitive damages. This claim may be summarily dismissed because it is tantamount to asking the Tribunal to make an example of the Organisation by obliging it to pay compensation exceeding the material and moral injury actually suffered by the complainant. Such a claim may be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, for instance where an organisation's conduct has been in gross breach of its obligation to act in good faith."
Keywords:
breach; compensation; good faith; material damages;
Judgment 2931
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that by any standards a delay of nearly 19 months to complete the internal appeal process is unreasonable."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; internal appeal; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reasonable time; reorganisation; time limit;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[T]he complainant contends that UNIDO's failure to conduct a performance appraisal before deciding not to renew his appointment constitutes a breach of procedure and a breach of his terms of employment as his letters of appointment stated that he would be evaluated on a yearly basis. [...] The defendant argues that since the non-renewal of the appointment was not based on performance, it is irrelevant whether a performance appraisal was or was not conducted. The Tribunal rejects this argument. UNIDO had a contractual obligation to conduct yearly performance appraisals. International organisations routinely require applicants for positions to provide at least their most recent performance appraisal from a prior employer. UNIDO's failure to provide the complainant with an appraisal has deprived him of the use of a critical tool in his search for future employment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; performance report; project personnel; reorganisation; status of complainant;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment must be set aside. However, the evidence does indicate that restructuring was being contemplated and has in fact occurred. In these circumstances, reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy. Rather, the complainant is entitled to be paid the salary and other allowances he would have received had his appointment been renewed for six months, together with interest [...]."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; judicial review; non-renewal of contract; project personnel; reinstatement; reorganisation;
Considerations 12 and 14
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Organization breached its duty of care in failing to accommodate him in another post or in a manner less drastic than the non-renewal of his appointment. [...]
The Organization had no obligation under the 200 Series of the Staff Rules to find an alternative post for the complainant. However, it had a duty to explore with him possible options prior to his separation. The failure to do so was an affront to his dignity and showed a lack of respect for him as a highly regarded long-serving staff member."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; respect for dignity; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
