Duty of care (645,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Duty of care
Total judgments found: 148
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
Judgment 4885
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In support of his claims, the complainant submits essentially that UNESCO could not lawfully abolish his training duties, since the performance of those duties, which had long been entrusted to him, should be regarded as intrinsically linked to his employment.
However, it follows from what was stated in consideration 2 [...] that the Tribunal could in any event only interfere with the decision to end those duties if that decision had a direct adverse impact on the complainant’s rights conferred by his terms of appointment. Yet the file shows that the duties in question were not specified in those terms. They were only added to his functions, as defined by those terms, when the internal training arrangements [...] were put in place.
Admittedly, the abolition of the duties in question would have nevertheless needed to be accompanied by financial compensation if it had also led to a substantial reduction in the complainant’s remuneration. Under the Tribunal’s case law, an organisation is required by its duty of care towards its staff members to provide such compensation where outsourcing seriously affects a staff member’s financial situation (see Judgment 3373, considerations 7 and 9). In view of the evidence on file, that is not the case here. The complainant emphasises specifically in his complaint that he performed his training duties without any financial compensation, from which it can be inferred that the abolition of those duties had no tangible consequences of this nature.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373
Keywords:
cause of action; duty of care;
Judgment 4882
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to grant him compensation, in the form of rest or in financial form, for the time spent putting on and taking off a compulsory service uniform.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, the duty of care which an international organisation owes to its officials does not extend to the obligation to grant them a benefit to which they are not entitled – as is the case here under the applicable provisions – or to take special steps to exempt them from the normal application of rules (see, in particular, Judgments 3357, consideration 15, and 2986, consideration 36). Nor does the duty of care, which does not prevent an organisation from adopting rules that are less favourable to its staff than those previously in force, imply that the organisation is required, in such a situation, to make exceptions or adjustments to the new rules in question (see Judgment 3034, consideration 25). The fact that the introduction of a uniform imposed new constraints on security officers did not in itself entitle them to compensation for those constraints.
The position would admittedly be different, as an exception to the aforementioned case law, if the introduction of the reform in question had led to a serious deterioration in the financial situation of the staff members concerned (see Judgments 4465, considerations 12 to 18, or 3373, considerations 5 to 11). However, that is plainly not so in the present case, as the amount of the monthly pay received by security officers did not decrease in absolute terms.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2986, 3034, 3357, 3373, 4465
Keywords:
duty of care;
Judgment 4880
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In support of his claims, the complainant submits essentially that UNESCO could not lawfully abolish his training duties, since the performance of those duties, which had long been entrusted to him, should be regarded as intrinsically linked to his employment.
However, it follows from what was stated in consideration 2 [...] that the Tribunal could in any event only interfere with the decision to end those duties if that decision had a direct adverse impact on the complainant’s rights conferred by his terms of appointment. Yet, as the complainant himself notes in his written submissions, the duties in question were not specified in those terms. They were only added to his functions, as defined by those terms, when the internal training arrangements established in particular by the aforementioned memoranda of 16 June 2011 and 6 February 2017 were put in place.
Admittedly, the abolition of the duties in question would have nevertheless needed to be accompanied by financial compensation if it had also led to a substantial reduction in the complainant’s remuneration. Under the Tribunal’s case law, an organisation is required by its duty of care towards its staff members to provide such compensation where outsourcing seriously affects a staff member’s financial situation (see Judgment 3373, considerations 7 and 9). In view of the evidence on file, that is not the case here. The complainant emphasises specifically in his written submissions that he performed his training duties without any financial compensation, from which it can be inferred that the abolition of those duties had no tangible consequences of this nature.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373
Keywords:
cause of action; duty of care;
Judgment 4863
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to change her annual leave to certified sick leave and to place her on administrative leave without pay from 9 October 2019 until her summary dismissal on 13 December 2019.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The contention […] that [the complainant’s] placement on administrative leave was unlawfully retroactive is unfounded, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. Retroactivity in this case was justified by the need to regularize the complainant’s leave status, as she had been absent from work as from 2 September 2019 with no entitlements.
The Tribunal also notes that her placement on administrative leave was consistent with the Organization’s duty of care, and achieved a reasonable balance between the interests of the Organization and those of the complainant.
Keywords:
administrative leave; duty of care; retroactivity;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting a recommendation of an internal appeal body is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 12,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n this case, the moral injury occasioned by a failure to motivate a decision rejecting recommendations of an internal appeal body, is tolerably clear as is the Organization’s breach of its duty of care, as found by the Appeals Committee. The complainant is entitled to moral damages, which the Tribunal assesses in the sum of 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
breach; duty of care; impugned decision; internal appeals body; moral damages; moral injury; recommendation;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[I]n the result, the Director-General has not sufficiently motivated his decision to reject the conclusion and associated recommendation of the Appeals Committee that the Organization had breached its duty of care towards the complainant and should pay the complainant moral damages. Often, in cases of this type, the matter is remitted to the organisation to enable the executive head to motivate her or his decision. However, in the present case, the complainant has retired from the Organization and no apparent purpose would be served by requiring further reasons.
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; impugned decision; remand;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4850
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment for reasons of health.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
burden of proof; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to inform; loss of opportunity; mandatory time limit; medical opinion; notification; termination of employment for health reasons;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal does not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring process, unless and until it negatively affects a staff member in breach of staff rules and regulations. A line must be drawn between restructuring directions and decisions, which fall within the discretion of an organization, and individual decisions adopted as a consequence of a restructuring process. The Tribunal will assess whether such individual decisions comply with staff rules and regulations and the Organization’s duty of care. In the present case, there is no evidence that the Organization did not comply with rules and principles concerning the duty of care towards staff in case of restructuring exercises.
Keywords:
discretion; duty of care; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[N]o steps were apparently taken to cancel the first selection process to which the complainant had applied, the complainant took his written test after the position had been readvertised and, as the complainant states, he was not so informed and was not informed that he was not selected. It also seems apparent, that the Federation thereby also breached its duty of care to the complainant.
Keywords:
duty of care; selection procedure;
Judgment 4831
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his claim for compensation for service-incurred illness.
Consideration 12
Extract:
In a case such as the present, it was not sufficient for the complainant to simply assert, on the strength of a series of emails from his own physician, that his illness was service-incurred because it was, according to him, directly caused by the events of 14 October 2019. In notifying the complainant of the opening of an investigation for misconduct and of his suspension pending the outcome of that investigation, and in accompanying him outside the building, the organisation was implementing administrative decisions provided for in its legal framework. It was incumbent on the complainant to show that, in the way these decisions were implemented, ITU did not respect its duty of care, with the result that his illness was not solely due to the inherently unpleasant nature of the decisions in question. This would have required him to submit a specific claim to ITU as to the way he had been treated on 14 October 2019 and to possibly request that an investigation be undertaken.
Keywords:
duty of care; illness; service-incurred;
Judgment 4829
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
“[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
Keywords:
claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
Keywords:
claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
Judgment 4782
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalled its statements in Judgment 2972 that payment should be made “to each complainant for so long as he works shifts outside normal working hours” and that it was clear from its terms that Judgment 2972 was not based on acquired rights or the working of night shifts, but on the Organisation’s “duty of care to ensure that the new arrangements did not cause financial hardship to [the complainants]”.
The foregoing analysis confirms that the rationale for the Tribunal’s determination, in consideration 8 of Judgment 4484, that its decision that the complainants’ claims were unfounded did not depend upon whether or not the complainants continued to work or were still engaged in performing shift work. This therefore had no substantial bearing on the decision to dismiss their complaints. Rather, as the Tribunal explained, it was satisfied that the Appeals Committee had correctly considered that the deductions the Office made from the complainants’ compensatory allowances in respect of their career progression were permissible and lawful because the adverse financial effects that the reorganisation had had on their incomes in 2005 had been mitigated after some ten years during which the EPO had slightly reduced the compensatory allowance, while maintaining the complainants’ income at a stable level. The EPO had thereby over that period of time discharged the duty of care it owed to the complainants.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2972, 4484
Keywords:
duty of care;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A]ccording to well-established case law of the Tribunal, the general principle of good faith and the duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that might imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 4072, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal considers that this obligation to act in good faith and this duty of care do not – despite what the complainant submits to the contrary, without identifying anything in the Tribunal’s case law to substantiate his argument – extend to a requirement for the organisation to take the initiative to calculate the loss or gain in salary which might result from a promotion from a grade G post to a grade P post for any staff member interested in applying for such a promotion.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4072
Keywords:
duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; salary;
Judgment 4748
137th Session, 2024
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment at the end of his probationary period.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The [organization] violated its duty of care by failing to maintain a properly functioning appeal system, in breach of the applicable rules established by Articles 50 and 64 of the Staff Regulations [...]. Denying the complainant the opportunity to exercise his right to an effective internal appeal denied the fundamental safeguards provided by that right. Neither administrative inefficiency nor a lack of resources can excuse this failure. This is particularly important in a case involving the termination of employment, such as the present. If the appeal reveals that the termination decision was flawed, then, if it has been dealt with in a timely way, steps can be taken to reverse the effects of the termination, including reinstating the employee. As time passes, that outcome becomes increasingly difficult, for practical purposes, to achieve.
Keywords:
duty of care; internal appeals body; organisation's duties; right of appeal;
Judgment 4727
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant asserts that the EPO failed to assist him in his attempts to obtain corrected identity cards for his children.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duty of care;
Considerations 6 & 10
Extract:
As regards the particular legal context of the present dispute, it must be noted that the issuing of identity documents or visas to persons enjoying the privileges and immunities conferred by the seat agreement of an international organisation is the prerogative of the host State. The only duty on the organisation in question in that regard is to provide its officials with the necessary assistance to ensure that the rights inherent in their status as members of staff of that organisation are complied with by that State. Furthermore, the organisation is free to choose how it approaches the authorities in order to discharge that duty. As a result, the organisation can only be liable for delays in a suitable visa or identity document being issued if it has acted in bad faith, behaved inappropriately in its relations with the host State or been negligent in monitoring the progress of the case (see, in particular, on these various points, Judgment 3510, delivered in connection with a previous complaint lodged by the complainant concerning the initial refusal of the Dutch authorities to grant an entry visa to his daughter S., considerations 9, 12 to 14, 17 and 18, and the case law cited therein).
[...]
Admittedly, as has already been stated, issuing identity cards is a matter for the authorities of the host State and it is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal to examine the conditions in which the authorities assume that responsibility.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3510
Keywords:
duty of care; host state; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4697
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary sanction of downgrading.
Consideration 26
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s claim for the award of 50,000 euros in moral damages, it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law, firstly, that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 4559, consideration 10). Secondly, settled case law also holds that internal appeals must be conducted with due diligence and in a manner consistent with the duty of care an international organisation owes to its staff members (see Judgment 4178, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4178, 4559
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; internal appeal; moral injury; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4684
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification exercise for her post and seeks compensation in this regard.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that these successive delays in updating the complainant’s job description are indeed unreasonable and that the Organization thereby breached its duty of care and its duty to exercise diligence with regard to these other failings. The effect was to unduly prolong the updating exercise over a period of almost eight years and inevitably caused the complainant moral injury, which may be fairly redressed by awarding her compensation in the amount of 3,000 euros.
Keywords:
duty of care; time limit;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal notes [...] that, in this particular case, UNESCO was obliged to end the complainant’s assignment as Head of the Kinshasa Office following the birth of her child. Non-family duty stations, which are determined for all organisations in the United Nations system by the International Civil Service Commission on the basis of recommendations from the United Nations’ Department of Safety and Security, and a list of which appears, in the case of UNESCO, in Annex 4 C to the Human Resources Manual, are places considered unsuitable for the assignment of staff members who are accompanied by their family due to the security situation in the States where they are located. Since Kinshasa was, at the material time, classed as a duty station in this category, the Tribunal considers that the Organization was therefore obliged to transfer the complainant to a post compatible with her new family status. Had it not done so, UNESCO would not only have failed to follow its own rules but also and above all would have put the complainant and her child in danger, which would have been a serious breach of the duty that all international organisations have pursuant to the Tribunal’s case law to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the safety of their staff members and, more generally, a breach of the duty of care towards them (see, inter alia, Judgments 4239, consideration 21, 3689, consideration 5, and 3025, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3025, 3689, 4239
Keywords:
duty of care; duty station; non-family duty station; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4600
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her claim that her illness be recognized as service-incurred.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that international organizations have a duty to adopt appropriate measures to protect the health and ensure the safety of their staff members and that an organization which disregards this duty is liable to pay damages to the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgment 3689, under 5). In the circumstances of this case, the organization breached its duty of care to the complainant when it rejected her claim for compensation for her service-incurred illness in the face of the overwhelming evidence, including four favourable medical reports, and its failure to ensure a healthy work environment to protect her health.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3689
Keywords:
duty of care; health; service-incurred;
Judgment 4559
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the refusal to grant him retroactively two days of annual leave as compensation for two days worked during that leave.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members (see, for example, Judgment 3613, consideration 46) and that the general principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care require them to treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury (see, for example, Judgment 3861, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3613, 3861
Keywords:
duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; professional reputation; respect for dignity;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | next >
|
