Organisation (71, 73, 74, 673,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation
Total judgments found: 211
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 2558
101st Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the complainant, the decision to extend her probationary period is unlawful because it was not taken by the President of the Office. "The defendant has not shown that the Principal Director of Personnel was competent or held a delegation of authority; it merely acknowledges in its reply 'that there is no decision signed by the President extending the complainant's probationary period'. It argues that this does not invalidate the decision to extend the probationary period in view of the absence of any obvious error in the assessment of the complainant's performance. This argument is surprising insofar as it clearly arises from a confusion between the formal requirements and the substantive requirements of an administrative decision. Whether a decision is justified or not in substance, whoever takes the decision must in all cases make sure beforehand that he has the power to do so and, if not, refer the matter to the competent authority for a decision."
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; executive head; extension of contract; flaw; formal flaw; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mistaken conclusion; organisation; organisation's duties; probationary period; reply; work appraisal;
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
The complainant accuses the Appeals Committee of having breached her defence rights by refusing to call on the Office to produce the documents she requested. "Ideally, the Appeals Committee would have given reasons for rejecting the complainant's offer of additional evidence in the form of the testimonies of seven witnesses and 15 documents that the Office was being asked to produce, or would at least have made it clear in its opinion that the evidence already produced was sufficient to lead it to an objective assessment of the relevant facts. The complainant, however, offers no convincing explanation that all these items of evidence are really relevant. The Tribunal cannot therefore consider the rejection of the proffered evidence as constituting abuse of the broad discretion that internal appeals bodies must enjoy in this area."
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; complainant; disclosure of evidence; discretion; evidence; grounds; internal appeals body; misuse of authority; offer; oral proceedings; organisation; refusal; report; request by a party; right to reply; testimony;
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 2490
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he executive head of an organisation has discretionary authority not only to promote someone from one grade to another but also to say what place he shall hold in his new grade (see Judgment 313, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 313
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; grade; official; organisation; promotion;
Judgment 2480
100th Session, 2006
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 4
Extract:
The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;
Judgment 2475
99th Session, 2005
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"It has been consistently held by the Tribunal that an employee of an international organisation has a right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings and, as said in Judgment 203, that 'right includes inter alia the opportunity to participate in the examination of the evidence'. As that judgment makes clear, that is so even 'in the absence of any explicit text'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 203
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; case law; disciplinary procedure; disclosure of evidence; no provision; official; organisation; right; right to reply;
Judgment 2468
99th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated for unsatisfactory services. "The defendant is not wrong to point out that, except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member's services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established. The Tribunal, which pays considerable attention to these issues in the case of complaints concerning dismissal at the end of a probationary period or the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance, must be even more vigilant where an organisation terminates the appointment of a staff member holding a contract without limit of time, which in principle should secure him against any risk of job loss or insecurity. This applies particularly in the present case, since the staff member concerned by the termination for unsatisfactory services received on the whole satisfactory or even excellent appraisals over a period of 15 years."
Keywords:
complaint; condition; contract; different appraisals; fixed-term; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; period; permanent appointment; probationary period; satisfactory service; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2467
99th Session, 2005
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The complainants [...] claim compensation for the injury resulting from the delay with which their internal appeals were considered. [...] On this point, the Tribunal must recall that international organisations are fully responsible for the way their internal appeal bodies operate. In the cases in hand, however, it is worth noting that the long delay between the filing of the appeals and the reply given to them is to a large extent due to the fact that the complainants themselves waited until June 2003, and in some cases until August or October 2003, to file a rejoinder to the replies sent on behalf of the Director-General between June and August 2001. Even though their rejoinders were not mandatory from a legal point of view, these long delays show that the complainants did not pursue their appeals as diligently as precedent would require (see Judgment 1970 on this point). The Tribunal takes the view, therefore, that given the circumstances, the duration of the internal appeal procedure was not such as to amount to wrongdoing on the part of the Organization warranting redress."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1970
Keywords:
breach; case law; claim; compensation; complainant; consequence; date; delay; executive head; injury; internal appeal; internal appeals body; liability; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; rejoinder; reply; right; staff member's duties; time limit;
Judgment 2461
99th Session, 2005
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 1-3
Extract:
ESO considers that the complainant's internal appeal is not receivable according to Article R VI 1.02 of the Staff Regulations since he is no longer a staff member.
"The organisation is correct. The Staff Regulations do not give him any right of internal appeal. [...] The complainant alleges a contradiction between ESO's Staff Rules and Regulations [...] and Article VII(1) and (2) of the Tribunal's Statute. In fact, the language of the Tribunal's Statute does not specifically require the organisation to provide specific internal remedies, it only requires that those actually existing be exhausted."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII(1) and (2) of the Statute
Organization rules reference: Article R VI 1.02 of ESO's Staff Regulations
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; official; organisation; organisation's duties; provision; receivability of the complaint; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2450
99th Session, 2005
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"[T]here is no rule or general principle that obliges an international organisation to reimburse its staff for taxes payable outside the host country pursuant to legislation which is not that of the host country."
Keywords:
applicable law; domestic law; general principle; headquarters; organisation; organisation's duties; refund; staff regulations and rules; tax;
Judgment 2394
98th Session, 2005
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated. "[I]t emerges quite clearly from the file that the irregularities committed [...], the careless way the Organization advertised the complainant's post before he had even had a chance to comment on the termination of his contract, and the way it admitted the unlawfulness of the termination notified on 29 August 2001 [...] only in a decision of 28 June 2003 notified to the complainant on 17 July 2003, severely harmed the complainant's legitimate interests and impaired his dignity." He is therefore entitled to a compensation for the financial and moral damage he incurred.
Keywords:
acceptance; allowance; competition; date of notification; delay; flaw; injury; material injury; misconduct; moral injury; organisation; post; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; staff member's interest; termination of employment;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
After the decision not to renew his contract the complainant was placed on special leave with full pay until the end of the contract and his access to the building was withdrawn. When he went to the OPCW's premises in order to hand in his request for review, he was escorted at all times by a security officer. The complainant considered this treatment to be an affront to his dignity. "Without in any way denying that the OPCW, like many other international organisations, must be vigilant about matters of internal security, the Tribunal notes that neither in the impugned decision nor in its reply does the Organisation give any explanation as to why it was thought necessary to treat the complainant in such a humiliating manner. Except in the most urgent cases, the requirements of security can almost always be fully met while still respecting the rights and dignity of individuals. This is especially so where [...] there is no breach of discipline involved and the person concerned has for many years occupied a position of trust to the Organisation's apparent complete satisfaction. [...] The Tribunal assesses [the moral] damages at 10,000 euros [...]."
Keywords:
assignment; breach; contract; grounds; injury; moral injury; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's duties; reply; respect for dignity; right; salary; satisfactory service; special leave;
Judgment 2371
97th Session, 2004
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
One of the complainant's subordinates submitted a grievance for moral harassment against him. The Ombudsperson circulated her report thereby disclosing the accusations against the complainant to persons who were not entitled to be informed of them. "The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts made by the Office, as is its duty, to protect the reputation of a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 1619). But it notes that the defendant was under no obligation to seek the complainant's agreement as to the form and the terms of the communication to be sent to the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report and to those who subsequently indicated publicly that they had had knowledge of the report's conclusions. The Tribunal will not issue any injunction in this respect, but will leave it to the defendant to inform the recipients of the Ombudsperson's report, through whatever channels it deems appropriate, that it was regrettable that the report, which should have remained confidential and which concerns persons who were entitled to the protection of that confidentiality, should have been unlawfully circulated, which was all the more serious for the fact that some of its content was defamatory."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1619
Keywords:
advisory body; claim; communication to third party; confidential evidence; discretion; harassment; internal appeals body; official; organisation; organisation's duties; report; right; supervisor;
Judgment 2366
97th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"It is clear from Judgments 1560, 2112, 2201, and 2213 that a decision becomes binding on an organisation only when it is notified to the official concerned in the prescribed manner or in some other manner that gives rise to an inference that it was intended to notify the official of the decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1560, 2112, 2201, 2213
Keywords:
binding character; case law; condition; decision; difference; formal requirements; official; organisation; organisation's duties; purpose;
Judgment 2355
97th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Along with the obligation for an international organisation to give reasons when the executive head decides not to follow the recommendation of its internal appeal body (see Judgments 2092 and 2261), it has the duty in its pleadings before the Tribunal not to rely on new and different reasons which it failed to invoke in the impugned decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2261
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; decision; difference; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; general principle; grounds; iloat; internal appeals body; motivation; motivation of final decision; organisation; organisation's duties; recommendation; refusal; report;
Judgment 2316
96th Session, 2004
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
The complainant wants to be granted her salary increment to step X retroactively. "The particular circumstances upon which the ITU relies to argue that the complainant should not be granted her step X increment are that the unsatisfactory nature of her services had already been documented prior to the report signed on 3 May 2002 and that she did not cooperate with the establishment of her periodic appraisals. It may at once be noted that the appraisal for the relevant period was not made in May 2002, but in November of that year. Further, and given the complainant's absence on sick leave at various times during the relevant appraisal periods, it is difficult to infer lack of cooperation on her part. However, and more to the point, the matters upon which the Union relies fall far short of establishing that it made a genuine effort to comply with its own procedures, and do not show that the complainant frustrated or sabotaged any such effort. That being so [...], those considerations cannot defeat the complainant's entitlement to her step X increment retroactively. The treatment of the complainant by the ITU is [...] unacceptable."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; date; evidence; increment; liability; organisation; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; period; procedure before the tribunal; request by a party; right; sick leave; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2315
96th Session, 2004
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. "A change in the nature of the discretion to be exercised in determining whether to grant future rights by the extension or renewal of a contract cannot be said to effect a change in an existing legal interest, much less in an existing legal right or existing legal status. Accordingly, the seven year policy embodied in [the] directive [...] is not retroactive even if the seven year period is computed from a time prior to the proclamation of that policy."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; career; consequence; contract; date; decision; discretion; exception; extension of contract; general principle; limits; non-local status; official; organisation; period; professional category; publication; reckoning; right; staff member's interest; status of complainant; terms of appointment; written rule;
Consideration 17
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Much of the complainant's argument is directed to the proposition that the Commission cannot secure services of the standard specified in [Staff] Regulation 4.2 if it cannot retain those services beyond seven years, particularly as it has to compete for staff with other international organisations. That proposition is not self-evidently correct. Nor is it established by pointing, as the complainant does in his submissions, to international organisations which have a similar policy and which, according to the complainant, have or may have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining suitable staff. Moreover, [...] exceptions [are allowed] in the case of a need to retain 'essential expertise or memory in the Secretariat' ensures that, to that extent, its staffing needs can be satisfied."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CTBTO PrepCom's Staff Regulation 4.2
Keywords:
appointment; career; contract; enforcement; exception; general principle; lack of evidence; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; qualifications; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The Commission adopted a directive stipulating that staff members appointed to the Professional and higher categories and internationally recruited staff should not, except in certain limited exceptions, remain in service for more than seven years. In accordance with this directive, the complainant's contract was not renewed. "Although the embodiment of the seven year policy in [the] directive may properly be viewed as the prescribing of a term or condition upon which fixed-term contracts may be granted, it does not itself operate as the imposition of that term or condition. To be effective, a term or condition of the kind now in question must be incorporated in the contract, even if only by reference: a reference to the Staff Regulations and Rules is not sufficient because they do not incorporate the [...] directive in question. By implementing the seven year policy in the way that he purported to do in the present case, the Executive Secretary was attempting to enforce a term or condition that was not incorporated in the contract between the complainant and the Preparatory Commission."
Keywords:
appointment; career; complainant; condition; contract; effect; enforcement; exception; executive head; fixed-term; general principle; limits; non-local status; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation; professional category; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment; written rule;
Judgment 2314
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An employer is not absolved from the requirement to ensure equal treatment and equal pay for work of equal value merely because an employee has the right to seek reclassification of his or her post."
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; official; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary;
Consideration 21
Extract:
The post in respect of which the complainant was receiving a special post allowance was transferred but he has continued to perform the duties of the post. The Director-General has taken the view that transfer was equivalent to the abolition of the post and the allowance was terminated. The relevant Manual provision "does prohibit payment of a special post allowance when a post has been abolished. However, it does not and cannot relieve an employer of its duty to ensure proper remuneration for extra duties and responsibilities discharged by an employee over and above those of the substantive post which he or she holds."
Keywords:
abolition of post; executive head; official; organisation; organisation's duties; payment; post held by the complainant; provision; refusal; salary; special post allowance; staff regulations and rules; transfer;
Judgment 2313
96th Session, 2004
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is the duty of international organisations to ensure that they abide by the principle of equality and, particularly, that they comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. And if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to that principle and its requirement of equal remuneration, it is their duty to initiate procedures that do, whether by way of general rule or some specific procedure for the particular case."
Keywords:
consequence; equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general principle; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; salary; written rule;
Judgment 2312
96th Session, 2004
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
Under the EMBL Staff Rules and Regulations, there is no provision to appeal internally the non-renewal of a contract. "There is [...] no merit to the Laboratory's suggestion that the deliberate exclusion in the Staff Rules and Regulations of an internal appeal mechanism with regard to the non-renewal of a contract operates so as to exclude complaints to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is not determined by an organisation's Staff Rules but by the terms of the Tribunal's own Statute and the defendant organisation's submission to it. Thus, an organisation cannot unilaterally preclude the right to lodge a complaint. While it is the case that the Tribunal will often defer to discretionary decisions, the fact that a decision is discretionary does not take it outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Although a discretionary decision may warrant significant deference, it is still reviewable."
Keywords:
acceptance; competence of tribunal; complaint; consequence; contract; decision; definition; discretion; effect; iloat; iloat statute; internal appeal; judicial review; no provision; non-renewal of contract; omission; organisation; procedure before the tribunal; provision; right; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2304
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
In its Judgment 2246, the Tribunal ordered the Organization to provide the complainant within 30 days of notification of the judgment with part of the documents supplied to the Tribunal pursuant to Judgment 2192. The complainant points out that the Organization failed to do so within the time limit. "The Tribunal finds that the delay in supplying the documents cannot be attributed solely to the Organization. Prior to the expiry of the prescribed time limit, the latter [...] had written to the complainant asking him to undertake not to divulge the requested documents to third parties. Rather than reply to that letter, the complainant filed an application for execution with the Tribunal, whereas he ought to have shown good faith by replying to the defendant's request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2192, 2246
Keywords:
application for execution; communication to third party; confidential evidence; date of notification; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; iloat; judgment of the tribunal; liability; organisation; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
