|
|
 |
|
|
Elements (609,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Elements
Total judgments found: 48
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 3224
115th Session, 2013
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully contests the termination of her appointment for unsatisfactory service, alleging the absence of a genuine assessment procedure.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal recalls that a staff member whose service is not considered satisfactory is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, so as to be in a position to remedy the situation, and to have objectives set in advance. It also recalls that an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules governing the evaluation of that performance. Except in a case of manifest error, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment of a staff member’s services for that of the competent bodies of an international organisation. Nevertheless, such an assessment must be made in full knowledge of the facts, and the considerations on which it is based must be accurate and properly established (see Judgments 3070, under 9, 2468, under 16, and 2414, under 23 and 24)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2414, 2468, 3070
Keywords:
condition; criteria; decision; due process; duty to inform; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; performance report; right; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal; written rule;
Judgment 3065
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the evidence does not show that the complainant could have attended the witnesses' interviews, or that she was offered an opportunity to comment on their testimony, in order to have certain items of information rectified where necessary, or to have it put on record that she disagreed with witnesses. The Tribunal considers that even if, in the instant case, the investigator could not invite the complainant to attend all the interviews, she ought to have been allowed to see the testimony in order that she might challenge it, if necessary, by furnishing evidence. Since this was not the case, the Tribunal finds that the adversarial principle was not respected. It follows from the foregoing [...] that the [impugned] decision [...], which thus rested on a flawed investigation report, must be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; breach; consequence; duty to inform; elements; evidence; flaw; harassment; inquiry; investigation; mistake of fact; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; report; right to be heard; testimony;
Judgment 2940
109th Session, 2010
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3(b)
Extract:
"In accordance with the right to due process, which calls for transparent procedures, a staff member is entitled to be apprised of all items of information material to the outcome of his or her claims. The composition of an advisory body is one such item, since the identity of its members might have a bearing on the reasoning behind and credibility of the body's recommendation or opinion. The staff member is therefore at least entitled to comment on its composition (see Judgment 2767, under 7(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2767
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; due process; duty to inform; effect; elements; equity; general principle; grounds; recommendation; right; right to reply; settlement out of court;
Judgment 2893
108th Session, 2010
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that in reaching its opinion the Joint Committee for Disputes did not afford him due process since he was not given an opportunity to put his case himself, or to present oral submissions through counsel, and that he was thus denied the opportunity to exercise his right to be heard.
"This line of argument is unfounded. Neither the legal provisions governing Eurocontrol's Joint Committee for Disputes nor the general principles applicable to such an appeal body require that a complainant be given an opportunity to present oral submissions in person or through a representative. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state in Judgment 623, all that the right to a hearing requires is that the complainant should be free to put his case, either in writing or orally; the appeal body is not obliged to offer him both possibilities. As the Committee considered that it had gleaned sufficient information about the case from the parties' written submissions and documentary evidence, it was under no obligation to invite the complainant to put his case orally, or indeed to accede to any request to that effect (for similar cases, see Judgments 232, 428 and 1127). Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in this case the complainant did not indicate in his internal complaint, or subsequently announce, that he wished to present oral submissions to the Committee and that, contrary to his assertions, the Agency was under no duty to inform him expressly of the possibility of making such a request."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 232, 428, 623, 1127
Keywords:
breach; condition; counsel; elements; flaw; general principle; internal appeal; internal appeals body; no provision; oral proceedings; organisation's duties; report; request by a party; right to reply;
Judgment 2222
95th Session, 2003
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
"The decisive factor behind the request for the complainant's diplomatic immunity to be waived [...] was not brought to the complainant's knowledge. That might have given him a chance to identify his accusers and, if need be, armed with that knowledge, to explain to his hierarchical superiors the reasons for the serious charges brought against him, before the decision was taken to waive his diplomatic immunity [...] by virtue of the right to information recognised by the tribunal's case law, particularly Judgment 1756, the organization, which held information that was so important to the complainant, had an obligation to bring it to his knowledge. It may be concluded from the above that the organization violated the complainant's right to be informed and injured his dignity and reputation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1756
Keywords:
breach; case law; complainant; consequence; decision; duty to inform; elements; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; organisation's duties; privileges and immunities; request by a party; respect for dignity; right; right to reply; supervisor; waiver of immunity;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
Judgment 1848
87th Session, 1999
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant questions the right of the insurance company to which she is affiliated to contact her physicians directly to seek information. "The law is clear that [the insurance company] is entitled to any information which identifies the nature of the alleged illness and allows it to determine whether the prescribed treatment is appropriate and necessary [...] Of course the complainant is entitled to require that such information only be made available to [the insurance company's] medical adviser and be treated by the latter in confidence but she is not entitled to withhold from them any right of access whatsoever to the required medical information. Her unwillingness to allow such access goes against her duty to deal in good faith with her insurers."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1288
Keywords:
conduct; confidential evidence; elements; good faith; health insurance; illness; insurance; medical consultant; medical records; refusal; safeguard; staff member's duties;
Judgment 1713
84th Session, 1998
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"The manner of applying Flemming does not turn on such variables as the desire of staff to keep their jobs or the ease or difficulty of finding good local recruits. What Flemming ordains is that general service staff shall have pay and other terms of employment that match the best on offer at their duty station."
Keywords:
elements; flemming principle; icsc decision; official; safeguard; salary;
Judgment 1333
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainants had their pay docked for one day's strike action. The deductions the EPO made covered all elements of pay including allowances. The complainants sacrificed their family allowance from the EPO whereas other officials, who received an analogous allowance from the Dutch government, suffered no similar loss. "Employees whose families do receive the Dutch child allowance are not in the same position in law as those who receive the EPO family allowance, the source of the benefit not being the same. Since the principle of equal treatment applies only where staff members are in the same position in law, there is no breach of it in the present instance."
Keywords:
criteria; deduction; domestic law; elements; equal treatment; family allowance; general principle; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 1311
76th Session, 1994
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"In determining the amount of basic salary [...] as against the special allowances what counts is sums actually paid in salary, whatever they may be called and whatever method of accounting may be applied." The Tribunal holds that what the ESO regards as "special allowances" form part of "the basic salary that counts in reckoning the service indemnity where [it is] a regular additional item of pay."
Keywords:
allowance; base salary; definition; elements; reckoning; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 1295
75th Session, 1993
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
Vide Judgment 262, consideration 5.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 262
Keywords:
amount; costs; elements;
Judgment 1135
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant is challenging the inclusion in his personal file of correspondence which he submits has no place there. The Tribunal holds that "the make-up of the file is subject to formal rules calculated to guard against the filing throughout the staff member's career of documents about his conduct which have not been drawn up with due regard to elementary safeguards of his rights."
Keywords:
application for quashing; elements; personal file;
Judgment 1118
71st Session, 1991
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 25
Extract:
"According to Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, one item of pay is family allowances; they include the education allowance, of which education expenses form a part, and, contrary to what the complainants make out, the fact that such expenses are paid on the strength of supporting evidence does not make the education allowance as a whole any less an item of pay."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 62 AND 67 OF THE EUROCONTROL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
education expenses; elements; family allowance; refund; salary;
Judgment 1107
71st Session, 1991
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant, who joined CERN as a fireman, was transferred from a night-shift post to one confined to day work. The offer of the new post said that staff who gave up shift work could be compensated for loss of the shift allowance at digressive rates over three years. The Director- General decided to grant him compensation over a period of only one year. The Tribunal sets the decision aside on the grounds that "an offer of appointment holds good until it is withdrawn or accepted in good faith and without qualification, when it amounts to a contract."
Keywords:
acceptance; appointment; binding character; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; contract; elements; good faith; offer; reduction of salary; salary; transfer;
Judgment 1103
71st Session, 1991
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant was appointed to a post of reviser. For several years she served, in keeping with her job description, as de facto Head of the German Section. Later, her head-of- section duties were given to another reviser. "It is clear from [the complainant's job description] that the incumbent does not have the right to perform all of the linguistic and management duties stated therein, though he must be capable of performing them if his immediate supervisor so requires in the Office's interests."
Keywords:
elements; organisation's duties; post description; right; title of post;
Judgment 1001
68th Session, 1990
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who are employed by UNIDO in the general service category, seek the quashing of decisions setting their pay according to the new salary scales brought in as from 1 October 1987. They are objecting to the flat 2.4 per cent salary cut included in scales drawn up on the basis of an International Civil Service Commission recommendation to account for the so-called "commissary benefit". UNIDO Staff Regulation 6.5(a) says that the pay of staff in the general service category shall be based on "the best prevailing conditions of employment in the locality" (Flemming principle). The Tribunal holds that for the purpose of establishing parity with local pay the only relevant items are the ones defined in the Staff Regulations and financial rules of the organisation and paid out of its own funds. It follows that such a benefit as access to the commissary, which is provided for neither in the Staff Regulations nor in the financial rules and is a form of tax relief bestowed by the host country at no cost to the Organisation, may not count in a comparison of this nature. The Organization's decision to reduce salaries is unlawful and cannot stand. The cases are sent back to UNIDO for the recalculation of their pay.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UNIDO STAFF REGULATION 6.5(A)
Keywords:
elements; enforcement; flaw; flemming principle; fringe benefits; general service category; headquarters agreement; icsc decision; privileges and immunities; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1000
68th Session, 1990
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who are employed by the IAEA in the general service category, seek the quashing of decisions setting their pay according to the new salary scales brought in as from 1 October 1987. They are objecting to the flat 2.4 per cent salary cut included in scales drawn up on the basis of an International Civil Service Commission recommendation to account for the so-called "commissary benefit". Annex II.B.1 of the Agency's Provisional Staff Regulations says that the pay of staff in the general service category shall be based on "the best prevailing conditions of employment in the locality" (Flemming principle). The Tribunal holds that for the purpose of establishing parity with local pay the only relevant items are the ones defined in the Staff Regulations and financial rules of the organisation and paid out of its own funds. It follows that such a benefit as access to the commissary, which is provided for neither in the Staff Regulations nor in the financial rules and is a form of tax relief bestowed by the host country at no cost to the organisation, may not count in a comparison of this nature. The Agency's decision to reduce salaries is unlawful and cannot stand. The cases are sent back to the Agency for the recalculation of their pay.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ANNEX II.B.1 OF THE IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
elements; enforcement; flaw; flemming principle; fringe benefits; general service category; headquarters agreement; icsc decision; privileges and immunities; reckoning; reduction of salary; salary; scale; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 929
65th Session, 1988
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
For several years the complainants have been trying to obtain review of the description and grading of their posts. Their claims have all been rejected. The Tribunal was satisfied that on the evidence the description of their duties was out of date. In the circumstances the organization committed a mistake of law by refusing to carry out the requested review.
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; elements; flaw; judicial review; post classification; post description;
Judgment 896
64th Session, 1988
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"When his post is abolished someone with a fixed-term appointment is ordinarily entitled to fair compensation or other redress. The amount and the manner of determining it will depend on the particular circumstances of the organisation and an assessment of the staff member's own situation, and seniority, record of service and the terms of his appointment. The decision must not be discriminatory or tainted with any other flaw."
Keywords:
abolition of post; amount; compensation; contract; elements; fixed-term; organisation's duties; terminal entitlements; termination of employment;
Judgment 887
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
Certainty of the position in law requires the complainant to state clearly what it is he wants. The Tribunal observes that in both his internal appeal and the present complaint, the complainant has failed to indicate the specific documents or type of document he wished to have included in his personal file. Nor has he made clear the reasons for his action. In the present state of the dossier, his complaint is an abuse of the right of appeal under the Statute of the Tribunal.
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint; elements; no cause of action; personal file; receivability of the complaint; vague claim; vexatious complaint;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
