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

Internal appeals body (79, 80, 81, 84, 822, 823, 90, 91, 742, 785, 786, 813, 82, 819,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Internal appeals body
Total judgments found: 246

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >

  • Judgment 4221


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The complainant seeks damages on the ground that her right to a fair trial and to professional legal help during the desk audit or before the Appeals Board was breached. This claim is unfounded. There is no regulatory provision or statement in the case law that makes it mandatory that a staff member be represented by counsel either during the conduct of a desk audit or in the internal appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 995, consideration 5, 1763, consideration 10, 1817, consideration 8, and 2660, consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 995, 1763, 1817, 2660

    Keywords:

    desk audit; due process; internal appeals body; legal assistance;



  • Judgment 4210


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss as irreceivable his claim for compensation for injury or illness attributable to service.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The fourth argument is that there had been procedural irregularities attending the ABCC’s consideration of his case on 24 May 2017 and 11 December 2017. This is founded on the fact that all members of the ABCC did not sign the minutes of the May and December 2017 meetings. The complainant does not point to any case law or staff rule or regulation that requires all members to sign. Moreover the mere fact that all members did not sign does not even arguably sustain an inference that the decisions actually made were not unanimous (see, for example, Judgments 1763, consideration 13, and 810, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1763

    Keywords:

    formal flaw; formal requirements; internal appeals body; report; signature;



  • Judgment 4193


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    The Vice-President accepted the unanimous recommendation by the IAC to pay the complainant 2,000 euros in damages. He however rejected the further recommendation by the majority to carry out a reassessment of the complainant’s current post to clarify whether its grading was correct, basing the new assessment on the functions and tasks which she had performed since her request for review in 2005. The Tribunal notes that it was within the purview of the IAC to make this recommendation in its endeavour to resolve the dispute (see Judgments 3703, consideration 6, and 3318, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3318, 3703

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4180


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Appeals Board’s report in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations of the Appeals Board were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4171


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss her internal complaints of moral harassment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal will rely on the findings of the Appeals Board and, since no manifest error is apparent, will take for established the facts as the Board ascertained them. As the Tribunal has stated in its case law, an internal appeals body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the investigative powers granted to it. It gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof (see, for example, Judgments 2295, consideration 10, and 3424, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3424

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4169


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her performance report for the 2008-2009 biennium and the decision to defer her within-grade salary increment until 1 February 2011.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he allegations which the complainant made against her supervisor [...] were summarised in the presentation of the parties’ arguments, but after having noted that “the [complainant] [...] makes reference to a number of incidents surrounding the drawing up of the impugned [performance] report”, the Appeals Board merely stated that “the statements of the [complainant]’s supervisors, her own statement and that of her Counsel [...] before the Reports Board” were taken into account. This sweeping generalisation does not allow the Tribunal to understand the reasons for which the complainant’s allegations concerning the attitude of her supervisor [...] were accepted or dismissed, and to what extent, if at all. Since the Appeals Board did not respond to the complainant’s allegations, it is impossible to determine whether the Board gave due consideration to the question [...].

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; motivation;



  • Judgment 4167


    128th Session, 2019
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In order to justify his refusal to disclose the remaining part of the report, the Director General invoked reasons of confidentiality.
    According to Article 5 of Office Notice No. 06/11, “[t]he Joint Committee for Disputes shall carry out its activities with complete independence. It shall gather any information it requires to formulate an opinion. The members of the Committee shall be required to respect the confidential nature of information disclosed to them.”
    The investigation report obviously contained information that the Committee needed to have access to in order to form an opinion on the merits of the complainant’s internal complaint. Since the members of the said committee are obliged to respect the requirement of confidentiality of the information disclosed to them, as expressly specified in the aforementioned Article 5, the Director General could not invoke this requirement to justify his refusal to disclose the entire report to the Committee.

    Keywords:

    confidential evidence; internal appeals body;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal also notes that this refusal to disclose resulted in the Committee being unable to give a proper opinion on the merits of the internal complaint. The Director General thus rendered his final decision without the benefit of such an opinion, thereby disregarding an essential safeguard inherent in the right of appeal, which is the requirement that his final decision be informed by the opinion of the Committee. The decision is thus tainted with another irregularity.

    Keywords:

    final decision; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4101


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.

    Consideration 16

    Extract:

    Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3831, consideration 28, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831

    Keywords:

    evidence; internal appeals body; manifest error;



  • Judgment 4091


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant primarily challenges the amount of compensation offered to her by the IAEA in respect of a harassment complaint.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant is asking the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence. As stated in Judgment 3593, under 12, the Tribunal has consistently held:
    “[...] that it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said. For that reason such a body is entitled to considerable deference. So that where in the present case the Investigation Panel has heard evidence and made findings of fact based on its appreciation of that evidence and the correct application of the relevant rules and case law, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error.”
    (See also Judgments 3995, under 7, 3882, under 13, and 3682, under 8.)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3882, 3995

    Keywords:

    evidence; inquiry; internal appeals body; judicial review; manifest error; testimony;



  • Judgment 4063


    127th Session, 2019
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment on disciplinary grounds.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [W]hile the Appeals Board did express an opinion on the complainant’s pleas concerning [...], it did not, however, mention the many other pleas of a procedural nature raised by the complainant. [...] Thus, the Appeals Board did not examine all of the complainant’s pleas. In addition, the Director-General did not address those pleas in her decision of 2 August 2016 either. Accordingly, the right of the complainant to an effective internal appeal was denied. The decision impugned is thus unlawful, which justifies it being set aside.

    Keywords:

    impugned decision; internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4058


    127th Session, 2019
    World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for serious misconduct.

    Considerations 7-8

    Extract:

    Though the complainant raised the issue of conflict of interest of the Head of the Legal Service and the Head of Administration and Personnel, neither the Appeals Board nor the Secretary General in his final decision addressed this fundamental issue.
    The existence of the above-mentioned conflict of interest is enough of a vitiating procedural flaw to require the setting aside of the decisions [...].

    Keywords:

    conflict of interest; final decision; internal appeals body; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 4044


    126th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3695.

    Considerations 6-7

    Extract:

    Foundational to the Tribunal’s reasoning in [Judgment 3695] was the duty of an executive head of an organisation to substantiate a final decision departing from the recommendations of an appeal committee. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to Judgments 2339, 2699 and 3208.
    However, for the purpose of the present application for execution, the applicable principle was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2092, consideration 10. The Tribunal said a departure from a recommendation of an appeal committee must be explained, but also said: “[w]hen the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body he [or she] is under no obligation to give any further reasons than those given by the appeal body itself” (see also, for example, Judgments 2577 and 2611).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 2339, 2577, 2611, 2699, 3208, 3695

    Keywords:

    duty to substantiate decision; internal appeals body; motivation;



  • Judgment 4028


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    It is apparent from these conclusions and recommendations that the Appeal Board did not give an opinion on the merits of the appeal. As a result, the complainants were deprived of an essential safeguard inherent in their right of appeal, namely that the Secretary-General be informed by the Board’s opinion when taking his final decision.
    It follows that the impugned decision is unlawful as it was not taken in the light of such an opinion.

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4027


    126th Session, 2018
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that the internal appeal body’s consideration of the appeal is vitally important and, in particular, enables the official to decide whether or not to bring further proceedings, notable before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal found in Judgment 3424, under 11, that, “apart from the fact that the review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). [...] [T]he [a]ppeal body plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof.”
    In this case, the Appeal Board’s report, consisting of five essential points, does not provide full details of the disputed competition procedures, since the Board merely presents its findings without listing the complainant’s arguments or providing a preliminary discussion allowing its position to be understood. This very succinct report does not enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether the Board considered the disputed competition procedures in sufficient depth. Since the plea of a breach of the right to an effective internal appeal is well founded, the impugned decision must be set aside for that reason, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas concerning the lawfulness of the internal appeal proceedings.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2811, 3424

    Keywords:

    internal appeal; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4026


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently stated that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439

    Keywords:

    evidence; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4024


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Considerations 6-9

    Extract:

    [I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7). [...]
    In the Tribunal’s view, there was sufficient evidence upon which the Joint Appeals Board could have concluded, as it did, that the reclassification process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of AM.II/3. The Tribunal also notes that reasons were given for the decision not to reclassify the complainant’s post. In short, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the evaluation or of the reclassification exercise involved a mistaken conclusion (see Judgment 3589, consideration 4). In the foregoing premises, the complainant was not financially disadvantaged by the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3589

    Keywords:

    evidence; internal appeals body;



  • 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 7

    Extract:

    The Appeals Committee’s report in the present matter, as it was in Judgment 3969, consideration 11, is a mostly balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3969

    Keywords:

    deference; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 4005


    126th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her complaint of harassment.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, a reading of the report shows that the DAB engaged in an in-depth consideration of the complainant’s and Ms M.’s submissions, reviewed the relevant case law, specifically considered each of the alleged forms of harassment, the issue of retaliation, and carefully weighed the evidence with which it was provided. It is also observed that the DAB’s conclusions and recommendations were based on a thorough and balanced consideration of all the relevant facts and case law. It is now well established in the case law that such a report warrants considerable deference (see, for example, Judgment 3969, consideration 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3969

    Keywords:

    deference; internal appeals body;



  • 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 8

    Extract:

    These circumstances are not the same as those in Judgment 3184, for example, in which the Tribunal stated, in consideration 15, that if a member of an internal appeal board had already expressed a concluded view on the merits of an appeal and was later appointed to a new internal appeal board to express an opinion on the same merits in a later appeal, their impartiality and objectivity could be questioned.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3184

    Keywords:

    composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; internal appeals body;



  • Judgment 3995


    126th Session, 2018
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Such laconic reasoning which, in the absence of any specific reference to legal or factual considerations, prevents the complainant from ascertaining whether each of the pleas presented in support of his appeal was duly examined by the Board, or from challenging the merits of that body’s recommendation, plainly does not satisfy the minimum standards required in order to ensure that the complainant’s right to a fair appeal procedure is respected (see, for a comparable case, Judgment 1317, under 33).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1317

    Keywords:

    internal appeals body; motivation; report;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | next >


 
Last updated: 14.07.2020 ^ top