|
|
 |
|
|
Special leave (435,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Special leave
Total judgments found: 32
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Decisions regarding special leave are discretionary and, thus, they are subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if they have been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if they are based on an error of fact or law or have overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4750, consideration 9, and 4101, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4750
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; special leave;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant further argues [...] that the decision to place him on “administrative leave” is, in itself, unlawful, given that there is no provision for this administrative status in the Staff Regulations and the Rules of Application thereof. He notes in this regard that he is the only Agency staff member to have been removed from his functions and placed on “administrative leave” in the context of the reorganization carried out in 2019.
In its reply, Eurocontrol contends that the mere fact that “administrative leave” is not expressly provided for by the Staff Regulations does not, however, render its application unlawful. It argues that this measure formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments detailed in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and was a legitimate means of managing complex situations caused by restructuring measures resulting in the abolition of the functions of the official concerned and in which immediate reassignment was not possible, in particular because of the complainant’s high grade at the time of the reorganization. [...]
There is no provision in Article 5 that the official concerned may, while his potential reassignment is being reviewed, be placed on temporary “administrative leave”, as such a status is not provided for by the Staff Regulations or the Rules of Application. As the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes rightly pointed out in their report of 8 July 2020, this status does not appear in the exhaustive list of possible statuses to which staff members may be assigned, as laid down by Article 37 of the Staff Regulations, and while the term “administrative leave” is used in Article 10 of Rule of Application No. 6 concerning the terms and conditions governing leave, it is used in an entirely different context, namely where an official is placed on “administrative leave granted on an exceptional basis by the Agency’s Medical Officer”, pursuant to Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, since the determination of the administrative status assigned to a staff member must be considered an essential part of her or his status, the Organisation is also mistaken in its mere assertion that the measure of placement on temporary “administrative leave” formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations [...].
It follows that the plea whereby the decision to place the complainant on temporary “administrative leave” is tainted with an error of law is also founded.
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; special leave;
Judgment 4750
137th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for unauthorised absence and abandonment of post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
Although, as she observes, the complainant was [...] entitled to request special leave without pay, she did not have an automatic right to receive it; it was to be granted at the discretion of the Registrar of the Court. Given an international organisation’s discretionary authority to take such a decision, it is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgment 4101, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; special leave;
Judgment 4231
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 not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s finding in consideration 7 of Judgment 3596 merely accepted that special leave pursuant to Staff Rule 302.5.21 is intended as a privilege for the benefit of staff members for the reasons stated in that Rule “or for other important reasons”, which, in effect, must similarly be for the benefit of staff members by virtue of the ejusdem generis rule. Accordingly, in that case, as in the present case, the FAO committed an error of law and an abuse of authority when it used Staff Rule 302.5.21 unilaterally, for a purpose which was extraneous to the Rule, and in the manner in which it did.
[T]he complainant’s plea that the FAO committed an error of law and an abuse of authority when it placed him on special leave with pay some six months prior to the expiration of his appointment is well founded. The impugned decision of 12 March 2018, as well as the decisions of 4 July 2014 and 1 December 2014, will be set aside insofar as they concern the placement of the complainant on special leave. The complainant will be awarded moral damages for the harm to his professional reputation and to his dignity that he states he has suffered as a result of the unlawfulness of the decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3596
Keywords:
leave with pay; moral injury; respect for dignity; special leave;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; special leave;
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, a decision on a request for special leave is discretionary (see, for example, Judgment 2262, consideration 2). Considering the discretion afforded to international organizations to take such decisions, such a decision is subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if it has been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if it is based on an error of fact or law or has overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgements 1929, consideration 5, and 2619, consideration 5). In this case, the Director did not exceed the limits of her discretionary authority, which the Tribunal must respect in exercising its limited power of review over such matters.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929, 2262, 2619
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; special leave;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords:
discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;
Judgment 3596
121st Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; special leave;
Judgment 3438
119th Session, 2015
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the complainant's request for reintegration was moot and that her other claims were devoid of merit.
Considerations 11 and 12
Extract:
"The ITU acknowledges that none of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules establishes conditions for the reintegration of a staff member on special leave who has lost the link with his or her previous post. It explains that the practice it has devised in this respect stems from the need to reconcile the staff member’s interests in returning to active service and the organisation’s interests in ensuring the smooth operation of services. It does not dispute the right of a staff member on special leave to be reintegrated within the organisation, but submits that this right is different in nature when that person’s link with his or her previous post has disappeared. In other words, if this link still exists, on returning from his or her special leave the staff member must be directly assigned to his or her post, or an equivalent post, without having to go through a selection procedure. If this link has disappeared, the organisation still has a duty to reintegrate that person, but this is now an obligation of endeavour and no longer an obligation of result. It therefore no longer has a duty to appoint that staff member directly to an available post, but a duty conscientiously to make all the efforts which may be required of it to ensure that the person concerned finds a position in line with his or her competencies.
The Tribunal considers that this solution takes reasonable account of the interests of the staff member who has obtained special leave for a fairly long period of time during which it can happen, for example, this his or her post is abolished or that restructuring takes place with the result that an equivalent post cannot be identified immediately. The attention of the person concerned must be duly drawn to this possibility when he or she requests such leave. This solution also meets the legitimate interests of the organisation, which are protected by the principles governing appointments, transfers and promotions set forth in Staff Regulation 4.1 on the basis of Article 27, No. 154, of the ITU Constitution. These provisions state the necessity of securing for the ITU the service of persons possessing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity."
Keywords:
special leave;
Judgment 3113
113th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal concurs with the Joint Advisory Appeals Board's finding that the complainant was entitled to be reintegrated in a suitable post effective 1 April 2008 and that the Office had an obligation to ensure that it had the ability to do so. The Tribunal also concurs with the Board that as Judgment 2755 was delivered subsequent to that date it cannot rely on that judgment to explain its earlier conduct.
Keywords:
case law; special leave;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; special leave; termination of employment;
Judgment 2938
109th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has determined that a staff member on leave on personal grounds is ipso facto no longer performing the duties of his former post and that, although during this leave he continues to be an official, the rights arising from the performance of his duties - remuneration, promotion, guarantee of employment, etc. - are suspended until he is reinstated. In the interests of the service the Agency may therefore use the vacant post (see Judgment 416, under 2). At the end of leave on personal grounds the employer nonetheless has a duty to reinstate the official provided that the two cumulative conditions laid down by [...] Article 40 [of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre] are met: firstly, there must be a vacant post and, secondly, the staff member must be qualified for it (see Judgment 2034, under 11). This duty must be fulfilled promptly and with due regard for the dignity of the staff member concerned and the principle of good faith."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 40 of the General Conditions of Employment Governing Servants at the Eurocontrol Maastricht Centre
ILOAT Judgment(s): 416, 2034
Keywords:
accumulation; assignment; compassionate leave; condition; consequence; general principle; good faith; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; period; post held by the complainant; promotion; qualifications; reinstatement; respect for dignity; right; safeguard; salary; security of tenure; special leave; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; vacancy;
Judgment 2661
103rd Session, 2007
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"In Judgment 809 the Tribunal held that, in order to justify the imposition of special leave, the Organisation must show 'that use was not made of the special leave for any purpose extraneous to the Organization's interests and that the arrangement was a reasonable though not necessarily the only reasonable way out of the dilemma'. However, it must be noted that this statement was made in a context where a staff member had been required to take special leave until a new post was found."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 809
Keywords:
condition; interpretation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; purpose; special leave; transitional measures;
Judgment 2619
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The decision to grant special leave must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to all, unless all cases are identical in fact and in law. [...] Discrimination cannot be established until it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently."
Keywords:
breach; difference; discretion; equal treatment; evidence; exception; official; organisation's duties; same; special leave;
Judgment 2593
102nd Session, 2007
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Just as entitlement to sick leave terminates on the date of termination of an official's appointment, it is suspended during the period when the official is on special leave without salary."
Keywords:
date; official; period; right; separation from service; sick leave; special leave; unpaid leave;
Judgment 2379
98th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The complainant [...] claims days of special leave, which he had been denied, to sit [...] examinations. The Tribunal notes that it does not have the authority to order such action."
Keywords:
claim; competence of tribunal; receivability of the complaint; refusal; special leave;
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 2324
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"[P]ursuant to Rule 5.3.01, only the Director General had authority to place the complainant on special leave with full pay [...] However, [...] it was the Director of Administration, not the Director-General, who wrote to the complainant and informed her that he was 'placing [her] on special leave with pay until further notice'. That letter contains no reference whatsoever to the Director General or to any discussions with the latter. And although, in her request for review, the complainant expressly contended that the Director of Administration had taken the decision in question, the Director-General did not say anything to the contrary in his reply. [...] That correspondence gives rise to the very strong inference that the decision was taken by the Director of Administration and not by the Director General."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Interim Staff Rule 5.3.01
Keywords:
competence; decision; delegated authority; evidence; executive head; special leave;
Consideration 13
Extract:
"A decision to place a senior officer on leave with or without pay pending a review of his or her performance is one that inevitably affects that person's dignity and good name and, moreover, it is one that will almost certainly carry adverse consequences for his or her career. Where, as here, the decision is unlawful, the person concerned is entitled to compensation. However, the measure of compensation may vary according to whether, on the one hand, the decision might otherwise properly have been taken in the circumstances or, on the other, whether it appears to have been taken for an improper purpose." [See consideration 18 for the Tribunal's appreciation of the purpose.]
Keywords:
abuse of power; amount; career; compensation; grounds; misuse of authority; moral injury; proportionality; respect for dignity; special leave; unpaid leave; work appraisal;
Judgment 2130
93rd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The relief sought by the complainant is that he be granted special leave with pay for the months of November 1999, December 1999 and January 2000. He "was informed that his appointment would be terminated as of 24 December 1999. He does not dispute that he was paid up to that date. Obviously, he cannot claim special leave with pay for any period during which he received his regular salary. Equally obviously, from 24 December 1999 to the end of January 2000, he was no longer on the staff and there can be no basis to his claim for special leave, with or without pay."
Keywords:
date; period; refusal; request by a party; salary; separation from service; special leave; status of complainant;
Judgment 2053
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was on leave without pay for a period of 2 years and 8 months. There being no suitable post at the end of this period, this leave was extended for another 2 years. "What the complainant asked for [at the date of her reintegration] was the recalculation of her reckonable experience and her grade; in other words she was seeking promotion as a result of experience gained while on unpaid leave. Promotion is carefully regulated under Article 49 [of the Service Regulations]. This article provides for six different types of promotion, but there is no provision for promotion for having gained additional experience while on leave. Nor is there provision for any recalculation of the calculation made on recruitment. This claim fails."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; special leave; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1855
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
The complainant appeals against the Executive Head's decision to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the organisation to grant him special leave to attend a two-day training course. "It is common ground that the decision as to whether or not to grant a staff member special leave to attend training courses is discretionary. [T]he obligations under Article 29 of the Service Regulations to facilitate training may involve different considerations when one looks at the desirability of the staff member's taking such training, and when one has regard to the effect of the staff member's absence on the functioning of the service. In the present case, the refusal of special leave was justified by the growing backlog of [work]."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 29 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; decision; discretion; enforcement; organisation's interest; special leave; staff regulations and rules; training;
Judgment 1834
86th Session, 1999
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The organization placed the complainant on special leave without pay in August 1995, and told her in January 1996 that to stay on special leave she would have to provide medical certificates of inability to go back to work. "The complainant contends that her separation was in breach of her special leave status. [The Tribunal holds that] the receipt of [monthly medical] reports by the chief medical officer was clearly a condition of her maintaining special leave status. Her refusal, without persuasive justification, to submit the requested information [over several months] is a breach of that condition and ample indication of her intent to abandon her post."
Keywords:
abandonment of post; condition; illness; medical certificate; refusal; special leave; staff member's duties; termination of employment;
Judgment 1706
84th Session, 1998
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant, placed on special leave without pay following an 'agreed termination' was a candidate in an internal competition. The Organization maintains that she was no longer a staff member at the moment of recruitment. "The Tribunal [...] holds that the 'agreed termination' did not in any way restrict her rights under the Staff Rules, while she remained a staff member, to preference over an outside male candidate in any future competition where qualifications were equal."
Keywords:
agreed termination; appointment; candidate; competition; internal candidate; priority; right; sex discrimination; special leave; staff regulations and rules; unpaid leave;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
