Good faith (193,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Good faith
Total judgments found: 202

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

• Judgment 4897

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her appraisal report for 2018.

  Considerations 14-15

  Extract:

  [S]elon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, le cadre réglementaire d’une procédure d’évaluation ne peut être modifié, du moins dans ses éléments substantiels, par une disposition adoptée après le début de la période d’évaluation concernée (voir notamment le jugement 4257, au considérant 10, explicitant la teneur du jugement 3185, au considérant 7). Cette solution, qui vaut bien entendu au premier chef pour la définition des critères au regard desquels est opérée l’évaluation, se justifie par la nécessité de respecter tant le principe de non-rétroactivité des actes administratifs que les exigences de bonne foi, de transparence et d’équité qui s’imposent en matière d’évaluation des fonctionnaires […] le Tribunal estime que les règles complémentaires ainsi prévues ne sauraient être regardées comme ayant modifié de manière substantielle la procédure d’évaluation définie par les directives, dès lors notamment que la connaissance préalable de ces règles n’eût été aucunement de nature, en tout état de cause, à influer sur le comportement professionnel des fonctionnaires concernés pendant la période d’évaluation.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 4257
  

  Keywords:

  good faith; non-retroactivity; performance report; rating;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4777

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [A]ccording to well-established case law of the Tribunal, the general principle of good faith and the duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that might imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 4072, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal considers that this obligation to act in good faith and this duty of care do not – despite what the complainant submits to the contrary, without identifying anything in the Tribunal’s case law to substantiate his argument – extend to a requirement for the organisation to take the initiative to calculate the loss or gain in salary which might result from a promotion from a grade G post to a grade P post for any staff member interested in applying for such a promotion.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4072
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4741

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term contract.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant’s allegation that she was misled as to the potential exercise of her right of appeal [...] is unfounded. [T]he documents in the file show that the complainant was well aware of the relevant provisions of the Staff Rules.
  As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law, officials are expected to know their rights and the rules and regulations to which they are subject, and ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is no excuse (see, in this regard, Judgments 4673, consideration 16, 4573, consideration 4, 4324, consideration 11, and 4032, consideration 6).
  Furthermore, it must be noted that the Organisation’s reply [...] came shortly after the complainant’s appeal [...] had been submitted, and that on the date of the reply the complainant was not yet time-barred from bringing the matter before the Tribunal. This may be seen as evidence that the Organisation did not seek to mislead the complainant or lead her into a procedural trap and, on the contrary, duly informed her of her rights at a stage when she could still file a complaint.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4032, 4324, 4573, 4673
  

  Keywords:

  duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; good faith; ignorance of the rules; right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4697

  
  136th Session, 2023
  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 impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.

  Consideration 26

  Extract:

  As regards the complainant’s claim for the award of 50,000 euros in moral damages, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law, firstly, that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 4559, consideration 10). Secondly, settled case law also holds that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see Judgment 4178, consideration 15).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4178, 4559
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4678

  
  136th Session, 2023
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to extend his fixed-term contract due to unsatisfactory performance and to withhold his within-grade salary increment.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  Contrary to the complainant’s argument, good faith does not require an organization to extend the appointment of an underperforming staff member merely because the staff member has applied for a disability benefit.

  Keywords:

  extension of contract; good faith; invalidity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4580

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  [I]n their rejoinder the complainants submit that the BIPM breached its duty to act in good faith towards them as it did not inform them at the time of their recruitment or during their employment that their contributions to the pension scheme were liable to increase significantly over time. However, the complainants could not be unaware of the risk that contributions would increase in line with financial necessity, which characterises all social insurance schemes to a greater or lesser extent.

  Keywords:

  duty to inform; good faith;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4559

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [I]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members (see, for example, Judgment 3613, consideration 46) and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 3861, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3613, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; professional reputation; respect for dignity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4469

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges Eurocontrol’s decision to recover various sums which were allegedly unduly paid to him.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  A finding that the complainant did in fact notice the error in calculating his salary would also automatically cast doubt on his good faith, since he would then of course have been required to report that error to the Eurocontrol Administration. However, the Tribunal considers that his good faith is borne out by the fact that the Organisation detected the error committed in 2015 owing to a request for information from the complainant, who [...] expressed surprise to the Administration that he had not been awarded a salary increase when he advanced to the second step of his grade. It is difficult to see why the complainant felt it necessary to raise this matter if he was aware that he had, in fact, already been receiving the remuneration corresponding to the step in question since 2015.

  Keywords:

  good faith; recovery of overpayment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4412

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has consistently stated, for example in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, that 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.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
  

  Keywords:

  good faith; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4298

  
  130th Session, 2020
  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his claim for compensation for a service-incurred disability.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [A]n organisation is entitled to adopt a position in relation to any claim of a staff member or former staff member for a benefit. If the organisation believes on reasonable grounds, that the benefit is unavailable, it is open to the organisation to resist the claim. But that is not a license to take all or any unreasonable point in doing so.

  Keywords:

  good faith;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  If, in truth, the OPCW had been uncertain about what the Tribunal’s orders in Judgment 3854 meant or had considered they deviated from the issue requiring determination, it could have sought the Tribunal’s assistance (see, for example, Judgment 3003, consideration 31). It did not do so. The OPCW, in advancing this submission, breached its duty to execute the Tribunal’s judgment in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3823, consideration 4). The complainant is entitled to compensation for this breach (see Judgment 2684, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3823, 3854
  

  Keywords:

  execution of judgment; good faith;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4277

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3538 (under 15), the power clearly vested in the competent authority to alter the pension scheme can be exercised lawfully if it represents a bona fide attempt to secure the pension scheme into the future and is based on what appears to be properly reasoned actuarial advice.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
  

  Keywords:

  actuary; good faith; pension; sustainability;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4253

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant takes issue with the Organization for having disclosed to certain representatives of Persian Gulf countries confidential emails that he had sent in 2009 to his superiors condemning current practices in those countries, which, he alleges, made him lose all credibility in the region and had adverse consequences for his reputation and professional opportunities after his retirement. The JAAB agreed that “such disclosure is neither appropriate nor acceptable, as it was probably detrimental to the dignity and the reputation of the complainant”, but it considered that the complainant was barred from presenting this argument in his harassment grievance.
  The disclosure of these confidential emails, which is not disputed by the Organization, constitutes a serious violation of the obligation of good faith and the duty of care. This plea is well founded.

  Keywords:

  confidential evidence; duty of care; good faith;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of good faith implies that a promise must be fulfilled, subject to the condition that the promise should “be substantive, i.e. to act, or not to act, or to allow, that it should come from someone who is competent or deemed competent to make it; that breach should cause injury to him or her who relies on it; and that the position in law should not have altered between the date of the promise and the date on which fulfilment is due” (see, for example, Judgments 782, consideration 1, 3005, consideration 12, 3115, consideration 5, 3148, consideration 7, and 3619, considerations 14 and 15). The ILO submits that the complainant does not “appear” to have suffered any real injury, since he waited for almost ten years to raise the issue. This objection cannot be upheld, as the existence of injury does not depend upon the time at which it is alleged. The promise to assign the complainant coordination duties satisfies the criteria established by the case law and should therefore have been fulfilled. The complainant rightly considers that the Organization violated the principle of good faith.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 782, 3005, 3115, 3148, 3619
  

  Keywords:

  good faith; promise;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4230

  
  129th Session, 2020
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to introduce a maximum length of employment under short-term appointments in breach of applicable rules on consultation with staff representatives.

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  The complaint is well founded. As recognized by the majority of the members of the Appeals Committee, the amendment to the proposed 55-month rule, that is, its immediate application rather than the originally proposed application, was “drastically different from the effects the originally proposed 55-month rule would have had”. Changing the proposal to provide for an immediate application resulted in a significant number of staff members holding a temporary appointment being affected. The majority of the members of the Appeals Committee observed that “[t]he measures taken by the Organization in the follow-up to the issuance of [the Circular], in particular the extensions of contracts until 31 July 2015 for those individuals who had already accumulated 55 months of aggregate service at the time of issuance of the [Circular], indicate[d] the type of effects and potential responses fully informed and open consultations on the amended 55-month rule could have anticipated”. The majority noted “that on 5 March 2015, the SMCC discussed the amended [...] 55-month rule. However, neither the [complainant] nor the Organization submit[ted] that these discussions were ‘consultations’, as required by Staff Rule 302.8.3”. The majority did not consider that the meeting of 5 March constituted a “proper and meaningful consultation”, and it noted also that the “UGSS, according to the SMCC summary record, had informed Management on 5 March 2015 that it ‘was not aware of how many temporary staff would be immediately affected by the new rule on the retroactive limitation of short-term employment to 55 months, and asked to receive the numbers of [the General Service staff] that would be touched and risk to be separated by the Organization’. This information, in the [majority’s] view, would indeed have been useful, in fact, it was crucial to assess the effects of the amended 55-month rule on existing short-term [...] staff [in the General Service category]. However the information was not made available.” The Tribunal finds these considerations to be correct.
  
  The Tribunal finds that by informing the staff representative bodies, at the 5 March meeting, of the decision to proceed with the introduction of the new Policy through the publication of the Circular on 6 March, the Organization was essentially presenting them with a fait accompli. Contrary to the Director-General’s view that the consultation process preceding the issuance of the Circular was appropriate, the Tribunal finds that it was insufficient, as a proper consultation must allow a reasonable amount of time for the consulted body to discuss the issue, have its principal questions answered and provide reasoned advice or recommendations, and must also allow time for the deciding authority to take that advice into consideration prior to taking the decision. In Judgment 380, under 21, the Tribunal stated: “Where there is only a simple obligation to consult, the decision-maker’s duty is to listen or at most to exchange views. The object of the consultation is that [she or] he will make the best decision and the assumption is that [she or] he will not succeed in doing that unless [she or] he has the benefit of the views of the person consulted. The object of negotiation on the other hand is compromise. This object would be frustrated if either party began with the determination not to make any concession in any circumstances, just as the object of consultation would be frustrated if the decision-maker began with a determination not to be influenced by anything that might be said to [her or] him. On both these hypotheses there would be a lack of good faith.”

  Keywords:

  consultation; good faith; staff representative;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4222

  
  129th Session, 2020
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of UNESCO to award full compensation for the injury suffered as a result of an accident recognized as being service-incurred.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [I]t would be contrary to the principle of good faith, which required that the complainant should receive a timely reply, to considering her appeal as time-barred.

  Keywords:

  good faith; late appeal;
  

  
  
  

• 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 13

  Extract:

  Even though the charge of harassment cannot stand, an international organisation fails in its duty to treat staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury if the organisation is aware of an unhealthy working atmosphere in the service where a staff member works but allows it to remain without taking adequate measures to remedy the situation (see, to this effect, Judgment 2067, considerations 16 and 17).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2067
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; harassment; organisation's duties; patere legem; respect for dignity;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4146

  
  128th Session, 2019
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decisions not to grant him a contract of indefinite duration and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond nine years of service.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 3861, under 9, that the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require international organisations to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury, and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests. The Tribunal has also observed that in order for there to be misuse of authority, it must be established that the decision rested on considerations extraneous to the organisation’s interests and that the staff member alleging abuse of authority bears the burden of establishing the improper purpose for which the authority was exercised (see, for example, Judgment 3193, under 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3193, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; burden of proof; good faith; misuse of authority;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4093

  
  127th Session, 2019
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 3689.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal’s judgments, which, under Article VI of its Statute, are “final and without appeal” and which, furthermore, have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute judgments (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
  

  Keywords:

  application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4092

  
  127th Session, 2019
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant asks the Tribunal to order WHO to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Judgment 3871 and, in particular, to reinstate him with all legal consequences.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  It should be recalled that the Tribunal’s judgments, which according to Article VI of its Statute are “final and without appeal” and which have res judicata authority, are immediately operative (see, for example, Judgments 3003, consideration 12, and 3152, consideration 11). As they may not later be called into question except when an application for review is allowed, they must be executed by the parties as ruled (see, for example, Judgments 3566, consideration 6, and 3635, consideration 4). The parties must work together in good faith to execute the judgment (see, for example, Judgments 2684, consideration 6, and 3823, consideration 4).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2684, 3003, 3152, 3566, 3635, 3823
  

  Keywords:

  application for execution; good faith; res judicata;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4072

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
  In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards his past performance, the complainant was unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of his evaluation referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor was he informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of his post, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with him. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that he did not meet the requirements in question, the complainant was not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that his consent was vitiated.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4071

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  As regards the lack of both transparency and information, the Tribunal recalls that, according to its case law, the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organizations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgments 2116, consideration 5, 2768, consideration 4, 3024, consideration 12, and 3861, consideration 9).
  In the present case, the organization disregarded the principle of good faith and its duty of care. Indeed, as regards their past performance, the complainants were unaware, at the time of the meetings in question, of the outcome of the calibration of their evaluations referred to by those conducting the meeting. Nor were the complainants informed of the competencies that had supposedly been evaluated in anticipation of the restructuring of the organization or of the new specific requirements of their posts, which, according to the Appeal Board, were not reflected in the job descriptions, or of the new objectives, which, again according to the Board, had not been discussed with them. Unaware of the reasons why the organization considered that they did not meet the requirements in question, the complainants were not in a position to make a fully informed choice between the two proposed alternatives. It follows that their consent was vitiated.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2768, 3024, 3861
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; lack of consent; performance evaluation;
  

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