|
|
 |
|
|
Working relations (506,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Working relations
Total judgments found: 59
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 3166
114th Session, 2013
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he suffered harassment, mobbing and defamation on the part of his supervisors.
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[T]he JAC appears to have retreated from making the ultimate finding of harassment because the complainant’s own attitude “can be construed as ‘a reasonable explanation for the conduct in question’”. The unexpressed assumption in this conclusion is that it is a legitimate response from a senior manager for the latter to intimidate a staff member who challenges, perhaps even inappropriately, his decisions. [...] It cannot be that intimidation by a senior manager is a reasonable response to a subordinate (including a senior subordinate), even if the latter exceeds his or her role by challenging decisions of the manager. In this respect, the JAC erred in its consideration of the complainant’s grievances. There can, of course, be situations where a subordinate’s refusal to accept the authority of his supervisor provides a complete explanation for the conduct of the supervisor. An example is found in the Tribunal’s Judgment 2468. However, in this case the JAC’s findings [relate to] conduct that cannot be explained away on this basis."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2468
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; conduct; decision; definition; flaw; harassment; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 3073
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 3064
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[I]n its report [...], the Joint Advisory Appeals Board "encourage[d] [the Human Resources Development Department] and the responsible chiefs of the complainant and of her head of section to pursue and step up their efforts to promote better communication and working relations" within the [complainant's unit] and [...] the letter of 18 March 2008 indicated that the Director-General had "endorse[d] this recommendation". The Administration was therefore under an obligation to pursue and step up the efforts in question. However, the evidence on file does not show that the Administration used all the means at the disposal of an organisation such as the ILO to achieve the desired result. The fact that the complainant chose to lodge an appeal in order to seek recognition of her rights did not exempt the Organization from its obligations towards one of its officials to whom it owed a duty of care and who has not been found to have committed any fault."
Keywords:
acceptance; consequence; duty of care; executive head; internal appeals body; misconduct; organisation's duties; purpose; recommendation; report; right; right of appeal; working relations;
Judgment 2912
109th Session, 2010
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The fact that the Staff Regulations of the Federation require express reference to terms of appointment, or to provisions of the Staff Rules or Staff Regulations for the filing of an internal appeal, does not exclude appeals based on a breach of general principles of law from the competence of the Joint Appeals Commission. An international organisation must comply with these principles, inter alia, in its relations with its staff and an internal appeal body is necessarily competent to review such compliance. [...] Article II, paragraph 5, of [the Tribunal's] Statute similarly stipulates that the Tribunal is competent to hear 'complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials [of the Federation] and of provisions of the Staff Regulations'. But naturally these provisions have never prevented the Tribunal from ruling on breaches of general principles of law."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competence; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; contract; formal flaw; general principle; iloat statute; internal appeal; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; provision; right; staff regulations and rules; working relations;
Judgment 2865
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Administrative authorities and organs have a duty to ensure, without prompting, that their procedures are properly conducted. It cannot be argued that a staff member has breached the principle of good faith by failing to request that these procedures be expedited. Indeed, a host of reasons connected with the employment relationship may explain that person's reluctance to chase up the advisory or decision-making organ."
Keywords:
administrative delay; advisory body; breach; due process; executive body; general principle; good faith; grounds; internal appeals body; official; organisation's duties; request by a party; working relations;
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 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 2654
103rd Session, 2007
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant requests that UNESCO recognise that she has been subjected to moral harassment and acknowledge all the repercussions this has had on her "human dignity and professional life". The Organization asks the Tribunal to find that there is no factual or legal basis to the complainant's claim that she notified the Administration of a case of moral harassment. The Tribunal considers "that the complainant did accuse her supervisor of harassment, and that the Organization, which was then under an obligation to initiate an objective inquiry into the validity of her accusations, failed to do so and has merely regretted the fact that it held no investigations.
By failing to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of such serious accusations, the defendant breached both its duty of care towards one of its staff members and its duty of good governance, thereby depriving the complainant of her right to be given an opportunity to prove her allegations."
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; career; claim; condition; consequence; duty of care; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; supervisor; working conditions; working relations;
Judgment 2646
103rd Session, 2007
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The complainant was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. He states that despite his repeated requests he was never transferred to another directorate. "As to the case law, the complainant relies on Judgment 396 in support of [this] assertion [...]. The issue in that case was whether the head of the Organisation had correctly applied a particular provision of the Staff Regulations authorising him to terminate the appointment of a probationer at any time in the Organisation's interests. The Tribunal stated that '[a]s a rule, before a [probationer] is dismissed thought should be given to transferring him to some other post on trial, especially if he is junior in rank'. It must, however, be noted that this was said in the context of a misunderstanding between the probationer and his supervisor and the Tribunal's observation that such a misunderstanding does not necessarily justify instant dismissal. In the present case, the stated reason for the dismissal was poor performance.
To conclude that in situations of poor performance a staff member on probation will always be entitled to a transfer prior to being dismissed undermines the whole purpose of probationary terms. In some circumstances a transfer may be the proper option, but the circumstances of the present case do not warrant this finding."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396
Keywords:
case law; discretion; enforcement; executive head; general principle; grounds; organisation; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; probationary period; provision; purpose; refusal; request by a party; right; staff regulations and rules; supervisor; termination of employment; transfer; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 2635
103rd Session, 2007
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is [...] well established in the case law that the preservation of harmony and good relations in a working environment are legitimate interests. A decision to transfer a staff member will not be invalid if taken for that purpose. Accordingly, in the present case, even if the decision to transfer the complainant was motivated by a desire to resolve relational difficulties, provided the new position accorded reasonably with her qualifications and respected her dignity, there would be no basis on which to interfere with the decision."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; grounds; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer; working conditions; working relations;
Judgment 2585
102nd Session, 2007
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"While it is true, as the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 2156, that 'elected representatives of the staff enjoy specific rights and safeguards in accordance with the general principles which govern employment relationships in international organisations and which are also generally recognised in national labour legislation', it is still up to the staff member complaining that such specific rights and safeguards have been violated to prove that fact and not merely rely on bald assertions."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
Keywords:
breach; burden of proof; case law; collective rights; domestic law; general principle; iloat; official; organisation; request by a party; right; safeguard; staff representative; working relations;
Judgment 2553
101st Session, 2006
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
"Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
"This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922
Keywords:
breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;
Judgment 2468
99th Session, 2005
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant asserts that his immediate supervisor subjected him to moral harassment. "Undoubtedly, serious problems arose from the tensions between the complainant and his former colleague, who had become his supervisor, but the former's refusal to recognise the authority of the latter largely accounts for a situation which, however regrettable, did not constitute harassment."
Keywords:
complainant; definition; insubordination; supervisor; working relations;
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated. "It may be concluded from all the circumstances of the case that, even though the complainant's conduct towards his supervisor was not what might be expected of an international civil servant and would probably have justified preventive action on the part of the Organization, the reasons given to establish that the complainant's abilities and performance were unsatisfactory did not suffice to justify terminating his appointment for unsatisfactory services.
The complainant's [...] claim for retroactive reinstatement, with all legal consequences, within the Organization's staff [is well founded]."
Keywords:
complainant; conduct; consequence; insubordination; official; organisation's duties; qualifications; reinstatement; right; supervisor; termination of employment; unsatisfactory service; working relations;
Judgment 2408
98th Session, 2005
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 23
Extract:
"[T]he decision not to renew her contract was not taken in implementation of the staff turnover policy [but] to rid the OPCW of the serious personal and professional conflict that existed between two senior members of the Secretariat and to avoid the necessity of taking steps to resolve that conflict. That was an improper purpose and to take a decision for that reason under cover of implementation of the staff turnover policy is both an abuse of authority and an act which demonstrates want of good faith."
Keywords:
abuse of power; contract; decision; good faith; grounds; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; purpose; working relations;
Judgment 2350
97th Session, 2004
European Free Trade Association
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Administration accessed the complainant's computer while she was on sick leave. The Tribunal considers that "the events which occurred during the complainant's absence on sick leave were most unfortunate. However [...] it is understandable that, given the urgency attending the Sub-Committee meeting preparations on which the complainant was working, her computer was accessed. [The] matter could and should have been handled with greater sensitivity and with proper regard to the complainant's privacy. Even so, those events fall far short of establishing hostility amounting to harassment."
Keywords:
confidential evidence; formal requirements; lack of evidence; mitigating circumstances; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; sick leave; working relations;
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The complainant submits that the behaviour of the Administration towards her amounted to harassment since she got only a one-step salary increase, rather than the two proposed by her supervisor, and only a two-year extension of contract rather than the customary three years. The Tribunal considers that such decisions "were decisions which the Secretary-General was entitled to reach in the exercise of his discretion. That being so, such decisions can only be viewed as part of a campaign of harassment if the other events upon which the complainant relies give rise to an inference that these were taken because of hostility, ill will or other improper motive. The complainant has failed to prove harassment."
Keywords:
burden of proof; cumulative decisions; decision; discretion; duration of appointment; executive head; extension of contract; grounds; harassment; increment; lack of evidence; recommendation; supervisor; working relations;
Judgment 2293
96th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
"While there is no doubt whatever that the Organisation owes a duty of good faith to its staff - '[r]elations between an organisation and its staff must be governed by good faith' (see Judgment 2116) - bad faith must be proved and is never presumed. [...] Although to act in bad faith is always to mismanage, the reverse is not the case and honest mistakes or even sheer stupidity will not, without more, be enough. Bad faith requires an element of malice, ill will, improper motive, fraud or similar dishonest purpose."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116
Keywords:
burden of proof; decision; evidence; good faith; lack of evidence; misconduct; organisation's duties; staff member's duties; working relations;
Judgment 2292
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
Even if "the Member States of the [Organisation] are all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Organisation [...] as such is not a member of the Council of Europe and is not bound by the Convention in the same way as signatory states. Nevertheless, the general principles enshrined in the Convention, particularly the principles of non-discrimination and the protection of property rights, are part of human rights, which, [...] in compliance with the Tribunal's case law, apply to relations with staff."
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; equal treatment; general principle; international civil service principles; international instrument; member state; organisation's duties; provision; right; rule of another organisation; universal declaration of human rights; working relations;
Judgment 2229
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(a)
Extract:
"A transfer of a non-disciplinary nature is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications (see, for example, Judgments 1496, 1556, 1972 [...]). The transfer may be motivated by the need to eliminate tensions compromising the functioning of a department (see, for example, Judgments 132, 1018 and 1972)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 132, 1018, 1496, 1556, 1972
Keywords:
assignment; case law; decision; discontinuance; effect; formal requirements; general principle; grade; grounds; official; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; post held by the complainant; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 2207
94th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The affair the complainant had with a national of the country of the duty station led to a series of incidents. "In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that it was in the organization's interest to terminate the complainant's assignment in Nairobi in order to maintain an untroubled working atmosphere in the service and to preserve its good relations with the host country. However, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law (see, in particular, Judgments 269 and 1231), the defendant could not terminate the complainant's appointment solely on that basis, without having taken appropriate steps to find him a new assignment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1231
Keywords:
case law; conduct; duty station; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 2067
91st Session, 2001
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant takes the administration to task for the fact that there has been no appraisal report on his performance since 1995. The organization [...] asserts that the omission arose because the complainant's supervisors were anxious to avoid a further confrontation at a time when working relations were strained [...] [The Tribunal considers that,] relations being tense, the [organization] had a duty to put matters right without evading its obligation to ensure that appraisal reports were established."
Keywords:
omission; organisation's duties; performance report; working relations;
Consideration 17
Extract:
"The [organization] did fail in the duty incumbent on all international organisations to treat staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury [...] [It] was aware of the unhealthy working atmosphere [...] the complainant [had to face]. That atmosphere was allowed to linger 'without the necessary assistance being given to sort matters out'."
Keywords:
failure to answer claim; misconduct; organisation; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; working relations;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
