Staff member's duties (491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Staff member's duties
Total judgments found: 146
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 2899
108th Session, 2010
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 29
Extract:
The complainant refused to accede to EFTA's request for reimbursement of an amount allegedly overpaid.
"Contrary to his submissions, the complainant could not refuse [...] to comply with the Association's express and repeated requests for reimbursement. As the internal appeal procedure does not have a suspensory effect, and even though [EFTA] would no doubt have been wiser to await its completion before demanding payment of the debt, he was bound to comply with these requests. His refusal to accede to them thus constituted misconduct which could lead to a disciplinary sanction [...]."
Keywords:
breach; condition; disciplinary measure; internal appeal; procedure before the tribunal; recovery of overpayment; refund; refusal; request by a party; staff member's duties; suspensory effects;
Judgment 2895
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 19 and 20
Extract:
The complainant challenged WHO's decision to "waive" in her case the medical examination on separation provided for in Staff Rule 1085. The Tribunal held that the exit medical examination is a mandatory part of the separation protocol. It awarded the complainant moral damages.
"Staff Rule 1085 reads:
"A staff member shall be examined immediately prior to his departure by the Staff Physician or by a physician designated by the Organization. If a staff member fails to undergo this medical examination within a reasonable time limit fixed by the Organization, then claims against the Organization arising out of illness or injury which allegedly occurred before the effective date of separation shall not be entertained; furthermore, the effective date of separation shall not be affected."
"The wording of the above provision makes it clear that a medical examination is mandatory. It follows from the mandatory nature of the medical examination on separation, coupled with the fact that it engages the interests of both parties and not just those of the Organization, that WHO could not unilaterally decide that in the circumstances the requirement of Staff Rule 1085 had been fulfilled. Although that rule contemplates the situation where a staff member fails to undergo the exit medical examination, it also sets out the potentially adverse consequence that the lack of such an examination may have for the staff member in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1085
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The Organization's assertion that the complainant did not specifically request to have an exit medical examination is correct. However, the exit medical examination requirement is not contingent on a staff member requesting to have the examination; it is a mandatory part of the separation protocol."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 23
Extract:
"The Tribunal finds that WHO's unilateral decision to "waive" the exit medical examination constitutes a violation of Staff Rule 1085. It also finds that, although there is no evidence that the decision was motivated by malice, the manner in which the Organization dealt with this issue was an affront to the complainant's dignity."
Keywords:
medical examination; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; separation from service; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2889
108th Session, 2010
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6 and 7
Extract:
"In accordance with the Tribunal's case law, at the stage of execution of a judgment by the parties, and likewise in the context of an application for execution, the judgment has res judicata authority and must be executed as ruled (see, for instance, Judgment 1887, under 8). An exception must, however, be made to this principle when execution proves to be impossible owing to facts of which the Tribunal was unaware when it adopted its judgment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1887
Keywords:
application for execution; date; exception; execution of judgment; general principle; judgment of the tribunal; organisation's duties; res judicata; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2882
108th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Although rules of procedure must be strictly complied with, they must not be construed too pedantically or set traps for staff members who are defending their rights. If these staff members break such a rule, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. Consequently, a staff member who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal (see Judgments 1734, under 3, and 1832, under 6). [...] The fact that an appeal is mistakenly submitted directly to the Appeal Board, as occurred in this case, cannot entail the irreceivability of the appeal. The Appeal Board has a duty to forward to the Director General any document which is intended for his attention and which has been sent to it in error, in order that it may be treated as a request for review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1734, 1832
Keywords:
breach; due process; executive head; formal requirements; good faith; internal appeal; internal appeals body; interpretation; organisation's duties; proportionality; purpose; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; staff member's duties; written rule;
Judgment 2861
107th Session, 2009
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 97-99
Extract:
The complainant argues that she was discharged from the continuing obligation of confidentiality when her employment was unlawfully terminated.
"There is no doubt that an international civil servant is under an obligation of discretion (see Judgments 1608 and 1732)."
"In the present case, the complainant had unsuccessfully availed herself of internal appeal procedures with respect to the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of IAS, her attempt to raise her claim of harassment had been rejected as 'abusive and ill driven' without investigation and her request for review of the decision not to renew her contract led to her summary dismissal. In these circumstances, it is to be doubted that there was a continuing obligation of complete discretion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1608, 1732
Keywords:
duty of discretion; limits; organisation's duties; organisation's reputation; respect for dignity; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2849
107th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed for misconduct.
"It is well established in the Tribunal's case law that where misconduct is denied, the onus is on the Administration to prove the misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, staff members are to be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgment 2786, under 9)."
"Although the complainant argues otherwise, the evidence gathered [...] clearly establishes misconduct beyond reasonable doubt."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2786
Keywords:
benefit of doubt; burden of proof; general principle; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 2847
107th Session, 2009
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant objects to the fact that the Agency has recovered the amount overpaid from the outset, i.e. over a five-year period, whereas in the opposite case, when the Agency makes a mistake to the detriment of an official, it usually benefits from rules of prescription which enable it greatly to reduce the amounts reimbursed.
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, a claim for recovery of undue payment is not imprescriptible and must be brought - even in the absence of any provision in writing to this effect - in reasonable time (see Judgments 53, under 4, and 2565, under 7(c)). However [...] the five-year period concerned by the recovery of the overpayment [...] cannot be regarded in this case as an unreasonable length of time, particularly because the disputed reimbursement arises from concealment on the part of the complainant and because Eurocontrol did not fail to take the necessary steps to recover the sums in question."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
ILOAT Judgment(s): 53, 2565
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; case law; dependent child; difference; domestic law; family allowance; injury; limits; misrepresentation; no provision; organisation's duties; payment; period; rate; reasonable time; recovery of overpayment; request by a party; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; time bar;
Consideration 17
Extract:
The complainant received family allowances paid at the full rate by Eurocontrol in respect of his three children but did not declare to the Agency that his partner was drawing family allowances from the competent national social security authority. According to Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations, the amount of family allowances that Eurocontrol was paying him should have been reduced by the amount of the family allowances received by his partner. The complainant had to reimburse the full amount overpaid.
"The evidence on file shows that the complainant deliberately refrained from declaring to Eurocontrol the family allowances drawn by his partner, although he had been duly informed that, in the Agency's view, they should be deducted from those he was receiving. While it was open to the complainant to challenge - if necessary before the Tribunal - any deductions made by the Agency in calculating the payments, he could not choose of his own accord to evade his duty of disclosure. He must therefore be deemed to have been aware of the unlawfulness of the disputed payments, which was indeed sufficiently obvious for it to be concluded that he could not have been unaware of it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations governing officials of the Eurocontrol Agency
Keywords:
accumulation; amount; breach; dependent child; domestic law; family allowance; flaw; misrepresentation; payment; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Upon being informed of the complainant's forthcoming marriage to the Director of her division, it was entirely proper for the Organization to consider whether the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules or its policy were engaged. It was equally proper to obtain advice on these matters. However, there was no need to canvas the views of some 40 staff members. [...] While properly structured consultations with staff through their association on matters of policy and regulations is appropriate, the canvassing of individual staff members in these circumstances was highly inappropriate and their individual views were irrelevant."
Keywords:
consultation; marital status; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"In her statement of appeal [...] the complainant specifically referred to and detailed the conduct that she alleged constituted a breach of the Organization's policy on harassment.
Upon receipt of these allegations of harassment, the Headquarters Board of Appeal was obliged to refer that aspect of the appeal to the Grievance Panel. The fact that the complainant did not take issue with the Board's failure to make the referral until sometime later, did not absolve the latter of its obligation to make the referral and to hold the appeal in abeyance.
The failure to make the mandatory referral constitutes an error of law for which the complainant is entitled to an award of moral damages. As the Director-General's decision was based on a fundamentally flawed process involving an error of law, it must be set aside."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the Organization's argument that the complainant should have pursued her harassment allegations by filing a formal complaint with the Grievance Panel. The Organization established the Grievance Panel to examine and make recommendations regarding formal complaints of harassment. It is clear from a reading of Information Note 36/2004 and Cluster Note 2001/13 that the Organization recognised that a harassment complaint could arise within the context of an appeal against an administrative decision or as a stand-alone complaint, and established separate mechanisms to have such complaints examined by the
Grievance Panel."
Keywords:
internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; staff member's duties; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2805
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4, 5 and 7
Extract:
The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision to reject his complaint of harassment, saying that his counsel would provide further details at a later date. The EPO dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a statement in support thereof. Before the Tribunal, the Organisation contends that the complainant failed to exhaust the internal means of redress.
"The issue at the centre of the complaint is whether it is necessary to provide grounds of appeal."
"There is no express provision in the Service Regulations or in Circular No. 286 requiring that grounds of appeal be specified when lodging an appeal."
"Where regulations and rules or other written documents are silent as to a matter, a term dealing with that matter may be implied, but only if it is so obviously comprehended within the text used in the regulations and rules or other document that its statement is unnecessary, or, if the term to be implied is necessary to give effect to some other term."
Keywords:
general principle; interpretation; interpretation of rules; no provision; provision; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 2800
106th Session, 2009
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
"Relations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith; an organisation must treat its staff with due consideration and avoid causing them undue injury. Also, it is well established in the case law that bad faith cannot be presumed, it must be proven. Additionally, bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2293
Keywords:
burden of proof; evidence; good faith; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 2773
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"The Tribunal also notes that the fact - which greatly surprises the complainant - that the UN did not consider it necessary to initiate proceedings against the other staff members whose conduct was criticised by the OIOS has no bearing on the lawfulness of the measure applied to the complainant in respect of the acts of which he is personally accused, since they are proven and imputable to him (see for example Judgments 207, 1271, 1977 or 2555)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 207, 1271, 1977, 2555
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; equal treatment; misconduct; official; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2732
105th Session, 2008
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainant's assertion that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules did not form part of her contract. The complainant's contract stipulated: '[y]our terms of employment, benefits and obligations will be those stated in [the] letter [of appointment], in the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules [...]'. Thus, it is clear that the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were specifically incorporated by reference into her contract. As to her claim that she did not have access to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, the complainant could have requested a copy thereof before signing the contract but did not do so."
Keywords:
contract; request by a party; social benefits; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2730
105th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]nyone filing a complaint with the Tribunal must state in his brief the facts of the case and the pleas raised against the impugned decision (Article 6, paragraph 1(b) of the Rules of the Tribunal). He should do so by putting forward arguments that can reasonably be considered to support his case. At all events, the immunity that the complainant enjoys in respect of his litigation does not exempt him from the duty to refrain from violating the respect that any litigant owes to the opposing parties. The Tribunal does not have to tolerate the initiation of proceedings before it that are manifestly frivolous, wrongful or vexatious."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 6, paragraph 1(b), of the Rules
Keywords:
complainant; complaint; decision; grounds; iloat statute; limits; privileges and immunities; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's duties; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 2720
105th Session, 2008
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant alleges that the ITU, in its letter to the journalist, made "scandalous" attacks on the Tribunal. "The Tribunal will not respond to the arguments presented in the complaint regarding prejudice that it allegedly suffered itself as a result of the circulation of the disputed message. The issue raised in this regard, which has no direct bearing on the dispute between the complainant and the ITU regarding compliance with obligations arising from their contractual relationship, falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as restrictively defined in Article II of its Statute. Furthermore, the Tribunal could not rule on such arguments without breaching its duty of impartiality."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; iloat statute; injury; lack of injury; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; vested competence;
Judgment 2702
104th Session, 2008
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is well established that the party seeking to rely on an unwritten rule bears the onus of proving the substance of the rule. This applies equally to a party seeking to rely on an established practice."
Keywords:
burden of proof; no provision; organisation's duties; practice; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2667
104th Session, 2008
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant now claims that when she signed her initial contract the Organization did not inform her of the consequences of her declaration [concerning her residential address] or, in particular, of the differences between local and international status. But this assertion cannot be accepted. It was up to the complainant to ask the Organization about the implications of the main clauses of the offer she was invited to accept and about the consequences of her replies on points which were decisive for her future career and salary. Rapid perusal of the Staff Regulations and Rules would have revealed the implications of accepting the offer of local recruitment."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; contract; law of contract; local status; non-local status; offer; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2656
103rd Session, 2007
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was accused of having deliberately made false allegations of misconduct against other staff members. At the end of the disciplinary procedure he was dismissed for serious misconduct. "[A]lthough it is not correct to equate deliberate falsehood with reckless indifference to the truth in all circumstances, the nature of the allegations may be such that there is little, if any, room for difference in the consequent sanction. The more serious the allegation, the greater is the need for care. In the present case the allegations were indeed serious, and were of a kind which, in the absence of cogent evidence, should never have been made. That being so, there was no error in this case in equating the appropriate sanction for reckless indifference with that for deliberate falsehood. The complainant showed a callous disregard for the feelings of the persons concerned and a lack of judgement that was wholly incompatible with the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant. In the circumstances, these matters do not warrant a finding that the disciplinary action was disproportionate to the conduct in question."
Keywords:
breach; conduct; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; freedom of speech; lack of evidence; liability; misconduct; official; proportionality; respect for dignity; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; termination of employment; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2631
103rd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under Article VII(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal, an official may have direct recourse to the Tribunal where the Administration fails to take a decision on any claim “within sixty days from the notification of the claim to it”. Only a person who has done all that is legally possible to secure a final decision within a reasonable time, but to no avail, is entitled to file a complaint against an implicit rejection (see, inter alia, Judgments 1344, under 11, and 1718, under 3).
Article VII(3) of the Tribunal's Statute must be read in conjunction with Article VII(1), which establishes the obligation to exhaust internal means of redress before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It follows that a complaint against an implicit decision to reject a claim is not receivable unless the complainant has exhausted all available internal remedies. The Tribunal cannot therefore hear such a complaint unless the implicit rejection may be inferred from the silence of the final authority competent to rule on the dispute between the official and the Administration (see Judgment 185)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 185
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint; condition; direct appeal to tribunal; failure to answer claim; iloat statute; implied decision; internal remedies exhausted; procedure before the tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; staff member's duties;
Judgment 2601
102nd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is hard to deny the complainant's misconduct: acts of rudeness and violence are naturally unacceptable in the workplace, whether in an international organisation or any other institution. It is particularly unacceptable for a supervisor to come to blows with a staff member under his supervision, and to strike him in the face as he did in the present case. [...] [I]t has not been established that [the complainant] merely defended himself from attack. As once again the Joint Advisory Committee found, 'even if [the complainant] was truly in a situation of self-defence, his reaction should have been proportionate to the assault. He should have tried to leave the premises without engaging in a fight and, if obliged to defend himself, he should merely have tried to bring his opponent under control without striking him to the point of causing him injury.'
[...] [T]he complainant could undoubtedly find mitigating circumstances in [his subordinate]'s attitude of insubordination, or even provocation, but that behaviour was in any case not such as to justify resorting to physical assault, which the defendant organisation could not tolerate on the part of a staff member entrusted with major responsibilities. The Tribunal in the circumstances is therefore unable to find that the sanction incurred by the complainant was clearly out of proportion (see Judgment 1725 for a similar situation)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1725
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary measure; insubordination; misconduct; mitigating circumstances; proportionality; serious misconduct; staff member's duties; supervisor;
Judgment 2569
102nd Session, 2007
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The vacancy notice of the post the complainant applied for stipulated that nationals of all Member States of CERN - including Switzerland - could apply. She was selected for the post but was dismissed after CERN discovered that in her application form she had stated that she held Swiss nationality whereas she had not yet acquired it. "[W]hile it is true that the fact that the complainant was married to a Swiss national should in principle have enabled her to obtain Swiss nationality under the 'facilitated naturalisation' procedure, it is equally true that at the time she filled out her application form she did not hold Swiss nationality and had not even applied for it. [...] By making a false declaration, the complainant was guilty of misconduct which, when it came to light after her recruitment, was sufficient to invalidate her appointment and to justify the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the grounds that she fell short of the standards of loyalty and integrity that the Organization is entitled to expect of its staff. Although the complainant maintains that by imposing the disputed sanction the defendant breached the terms of her appointment and the applicable provisions of CERN’s Staff Rules and Regulations, she does not substantiate those allegations in any way, nor does she identify any breach of the rules of procedure followed by the Organization. The complaint must therefore be dismissed."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; date; disciplinary measure; marital status; member state; misconduct; misrepresentation; nationality; organisation; post; reinstatement; safeguard; staff member's duties; termination of employment; vacancy notice;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
