Organisation's duties (202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 645,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Organisation's duties
Total judgments found: 658
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 | next >
Judgment 4884
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following an investigation.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its settled case law that the question whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). Where a specific procedure is laid down by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules correctly applied. The Tribunal has also considered that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in the sense that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the staff member accused, and that she or he be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charge made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). To establish that harassment took place, the alleged facts do not need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, contrary to what is required when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the perpetrator of harassment (see, to that effect, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
As regards the scope of the review that it may exercise over a decision to reject a harassment complaint, the Tribunal recalls that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of fact, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, to that effect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, it will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4289, 4291, 4344, 4344, 4471, 4541, 4663
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; organisation's duties; role of the tribunal;
Judgment 4883
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint at the end of the preliminary assessment procedure.
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls [...] that, when such a stage is provided for in the procedure for examining a harassment complaint, the sole purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation into that complaint. It follows that, at the preliminary assessment stage, a prima facie finding that some elements alleged by the person lodging the complaint in its support are genuine is, as a rule, sufficient to justify the continuation of the procedure, since it is in the course of the investigation itself, if opened, that the comprehensive search for evidence must be made (see to that effect, in particular, Judgment 4900, also delivered in public this day, considerations 27 and 28, as well as Judgments 4746, consideration 9, and 3640, consideration 5).
In this case, the Tribunal finds that the reality of the facts alleged by the complainant was for the most part corroborated by testimonies gathered during the preliminary assessment.
The Tribunal considers that such facts prima facie met the definition of harassment arising from Item 18.2 of the Human Resources Manual quoted in consideration 4, above. The actions and statements of which Mr M. was accused could in fact be reasonably perceived as constituting, in particular, offensive and/or undesired conduct in the workplace having the effect of affronting the complainant’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading and/or humiliating work environment.
In those conditions, Ms T. was wrong to consider that an investigation did not need to be opened because there was no “prima facie evidence of harassment”.
That flaw alone is sufficient to justify the setting aside of the impugned decision, without there being any need to rule on the complainant’s other pleas.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640, 4746, 4900
Keywords:
harassment; mistake of law; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Quite apart from any effect on the personal circumstances of a chief of a section or department, the Tribunal’s case law endorses the practice of requiring consultation with such a person in relation to plans for the reorganisation of the relevant section or department, and to not consult would ordinarily constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person (see, for example, Judgments 3353, consideration 30, 3071, consideration 30, and 2861, consideration 27). In this limited context, this would be particularly so if the reorganisation had an adverse effect on the personal circumstances of the individual section or departmental chief, though this is not to suggest any member of staff adversely affected by a reorganisation must be consulted before the reorganisation occurs.
However, in this case, the rather unusual circumstances inform the content of WIPO’s duty to consult. As just noted, it is reasonable to characterise the position of the complainant as having only been nominally the Director of CID in late 2017 and early 2018. However, and notwithstanding, an attempt was made to engage with him about the proposed reorganisation, though this was resisted by the complainant, on the basis being suggested, because of his ill health. In the Tribunal’s view, the basis being suggested by WIPO was, overall, reasonable. The complainant took the position, probably legitimately, that in the circumstances, him replying in writing within four days of the email of 18 December 2017 was too burdensome given his state of health. However, he also rejected the suggestion that he take the opportunity of discussing the matter by phone with the Deputy Director General. Again, he did so because, as he put it, of the state of his health. It was not at all obvious that, at this point in very late 2017, any effective consultation could take place and it was, therefore, open to the Deputy Director General to pursue the proposed reorganisation without input from the complainant.
There is nothing in the material before the Tribunal which would warrant a conclusion that WIPO should have proceeded, in relation to its obligation to consult, on the basis that the complainant would imminently return from sick leave and actively manage the CID or, potentially, whatever organisational division might replace it. Indeed, all the signs at that time were, including the approach adopted by the complainant to the invitation to discuss the proposed reorganisation by phone, that this would not occur.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861, 3071, 3353
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation; sick leave; staff member's interest;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Regarding an organization’s duties where harassment complaints are made, the Tribunal has stated, for example, in consideration 3 of Judgment 4344, that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members and that given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself. It further stated that the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context and that upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Moreover, a person who makes a harassment complaint has a duty to substantiate it. The Tribunal’s case law also states that the question as to whether harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a thorough examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4344
Keywords:
burden of proof; harassment; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Federation points out, and the facts make clear, the complainant’s position was never abolished but could no longer be funded, and consequently his contract was not extended. The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 11 of Judgment 4231, for example, that ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises when a post is abolished. As there is no specific provision to the contrary, the Federation had no obligation to reassign the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment 4820
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to dismiss his moral harassment complaints, and claims compensation for the injury which he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts complained of (see, in particular, Judgment 4471, consideration 18) and that an allegation of harassment must be borne out by specific facts, the burden of proof being on the person who pleads it, but there is no need to prove that the accused person acted with intent (see, for example, Judgments 4344, consideration 3, 3871, consideration 12, and 3692, consideration 18). When a specific procedure is prescribed by the organisation concerned, it must be followed and the rules must be applied correctly. The Tribunal has also held that the investigation must be objective, rigorous and thorough, in that it must be conducted in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the person implicated and to give that person the opportunity to test the evidence put against her or him and to answer the charges made (see, in particular, Judgments 4663, considerations 10 to 13, 4253, consideration 3, 3314, consideration 14, and 2771, consideration 15). It is, however, well settled that a staff member alleging harassment does not need to demonstrate, nor does the person or body evaluating the claim, that the facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that harassment occurred (see, in this connection, Judgments 4663, consideration 12, and 4289, consideration 10). The main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him (see Judgments 4663, consideration 13, and 4541, consideration 8).
The Tribunal recalls, furthermore, that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an investigative body which, as the primary trier of facts, has had the benefit of actually seeing and hearing many of the persons involved, and of assessing the reliability of what they have said (see, in this respect, Judgments 4291, consideration 12, and 3593, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see, in particular, Judgments 4344, consideration 8, 4091, consideration 17, and 3597, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3314, 3593, 3597, 3692, 3871, 4091, 4253, 4291, 4344, 4471, 4663
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; appraisal of evidence; burden of proof; due process; harassment; inquiry; judicial review; manifest error; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right; right to reply; standard of proof;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It is firstly clear, on the one hand, that the final investigation report, although requested by the complainant on several occasions, was never forwarded to him during the internal proceedings, even in anonymized form, which made him unable to be properly heard with full knowledge of the facts in these proceedings.
It emerges from the Director General’s decision of 27 March 2020, whereby he dismissed the internal appeal filed against the decision to dismiss the first harassment complaint inasmuch as it was directed against Mr P.H., that only the conclusions of the investigation report, set out in point 5 thereof, were forwarded to the complainant as an annex to the decision, while, in the decision itself, the Director General merely stated that “the facts examined in [the complainant’s] case [were] not constitutive of moral harassment”. Furthermore, if the Tribunal also refers to these conclusions of the investigation report, it must be noted that they are limited to the following considerations: firstly, “[t]he perception of the facts given by [the complainant] is not in line with the perception by Mr [P.H.] and by all heard MUAC [in Maastricht] witnesses. Documents give prove [sic] of meetings, appraisals, and situations, but do not prove any form of psychological harassment”; secondly, “[t]he investigation only focussed on possible psychological harassment by Mr [P.H.], it was not mandated to go further into the broader context”; thirdly, various observations made by the investigators about how the recruitment programme for young graduates was organized by the Organisation.
The Tribunal considers that such limited disclosure of the conclusions of the investigation report clearly does not meet the requirements laid down in its relevant case law and that the complainant may reasonably claim that he was unable to verify, even at the internal appeal stage, the content of the statements of the alleged harasser and the witnesses or the seriousness of the investigation conducted (compare, in particular, with Judgment 4471, considerations 14 and 23). The Tribunal recalls that it is firmly established that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 4739, consideration 10 (and the case law cited therein), 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, 2700, consideration 6, or 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organization must forward to the staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, in particular, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, consideration 17, and 3347, considerations 19 to 21).
The Organisation argues in this regard that the full investigation report is annexed to its reply and that this is in line with the Tribunal’s case law on this point, whereby the reasons for a decision may be provided in other proceedings or may be conveyed in response to a subsequent challenge (see Judgments 3316, consideration 7, 1757, consideration 5, and 1590, consideration 7).
However, the Tribunal has already recalled in this regard that, while the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected, in certain cases, when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgments 4217, consideration 4, and 3117, consideration 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 4217 consideration 4, 3995, consideration 5, 3831, considerations 16, 17 and 29, 3490, consideration 33, and 2315, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1757, 2229, 2315, 2700, 3117, 3214, 3295, 3316, 3347, 3490, 3831, 3995, 4217, 4471, 4739
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; general principle; harassment; internal appeals body; investigation report; motivation; motivation of final decision; official; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to information;
Judgment 4779
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal for misconduct.
Considerations 5 & 13
Extract:
[A]lthough it is indeed a matter of principle under the Tribunal’s case law that an organisation must respect the confidentiality of private messages stored in a professional email account (see, in particular, Judgment 2183, consideration 19), that requirement must clearly be balanced against the requirements intrinsic to the need to combat fraud and, more generally, to the need to tackle misconduct on the part of officials. [...]
[I]t should be recalled that, while international organisations cannot intrude on the private lives of their staff members, those staff members must nonetheless comply with the requirements inherent in their status as international civil servants, including in their personal conduct. This principle is, for example, laid down in the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service [...].Furthermore, the Tribunal has repeatedly stated in its case law that some private conduct may, on this account, legitimately lead to disciplinary action (see, for example, Judgments 4400, consideration 24, and 3602, consideration 13, and, with specific regard to a failure to honour private financial obligations, Judgments 2944, considerations 44 to 49, 1584, consideration 9, and 1480, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1480, 1584, 2183, 2944, 3602, 4400
Keywords:
conduct; disciplinary procedure; organisation's duties; private life;
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 4746
137th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to close her harassment complaint following a preliminary assessment and without conducting an investigation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties; parallel proceedings; time bar;
Consideration 9
Extract:
It should be recalled that, according to firm precedent, an organisation has no obligation to open a full investigation into allegations of harassment if the allegations are insufficiently substantiated at the stage of the preliminary assessment. As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3640, consideration 5, “[t]he sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of [...] a complaint [of harassment] is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3640
Keywords:
harassment; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties;
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.
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 4671
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4670
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
[S]ince reimbursement of the disputed contributions for the 2009-2012 period did not appear clearly impossible in the light of the aforementioned decision of the French Constitutional Council and the above-mentioned provisions of the French Social Security Code, the Tribunal considers that the Organization ought, at the very least, to have expressly requested URSSAF or the French public authorities to effect that reimbursement.
Interpol’s decision to affiliate its officials to the French social security scheme did not in any way release it from its obligations towards them. While it is true that the Organization only deducted the ESC following what it believed, wrongly, to be the applicable French law on the matter, it cannot take refuge behind the fact that it acted only as an intermediary, nor behind its status as an international organisation with no responsibility of its own for the application of that law. In fact, it is pursuant to Staff Regulation 7.1 that the Organization’s officials are usually covered by the compulsory social security schemes in force in the States in which they are stationed, unless the Organization decides otherwise. The officials concerned thus have no choice in this regard and it is therefore unreasonable to suggest that it was their own responsibility to pursue the matter with the French authorities and courts of their own accord, assuming this would be possible.
Keywords:
domestic law; medical insurance; organisation's duties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4669
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from her salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; interest on arrears; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4668
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from his salary in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
[S]ince reimbursement of the disputed contributions for the 2009-2012 period did not appear clearly impossible in the light of the aforementioned decision of the French Constitutional Council and the above-mentioned provisions of the French Social Security Code, the Tribunal considers that the Organization ought, at the very least, to have expressly requested URSSAF or the French public authorities to effect that reimbursement.
Interpol’s decision to affiliate its officials to the French social security scheme did not in any way release it from its obligations towards them. While it is true that the Organization only deducted the ESC following what it believed, wrongly, to be the applicable French law on the matter, it cannot take refuge behind the fact that it acted only as an intermediary, nor behind its status as an international organisation with no responsibility of its own for the application of that law. In fact, it is pursuant to Staff Regulation 7.1 that the Organization’s officials are usually covered by the compulsory social security schemes in force in the States in which they are stationed, unless the Organization decides otherwise. The officials concerned thus have no choice in this regard and it is therefore unreasonable to suggest that it was their own responsibility to pursue the matter with the French authorities and courts of their own accord, assuming this would be possible.
Keywords:
domestic law; medical insurance; organisation's duties;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties; refund;
Judgment 4667
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants seek the restitution of amounts wrongly deducted from their salaries in respect of sickness insurance contributions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; medical insurance; negligence; organisation's duties;
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
[S]ince reimbursement of the disputed contributions for the 2009-2012 period did not appear clearly impossible in the light of the aforementioned decision of the French Constitutional Council and the above-mentioned provisions of the French Social Security Code, the Tribunal considers that the Organization ought, at the very least, to have expressly requested URSSAF or the French public authorities to effect that reimbursement.
Interpol’s decision to affiliate its officials to the French social security scheme did not in any way release it from its obligations towards them. While it is true that the Organization only deducted the ESC following what it believed, wrongly, to be the applicable French law on the matter, it cannot take refuge behind the fact that it acted only as an intermediary, nor behind its status as an international organisation with no responsibility of its own for the application of that law. In fact, it is pursuant to Staff Regulation 7.1 that the Organization’s officials are usually covered by the compulsory social security schemes in force in the States in which they are stationed, unless the Organization decides otherwise. The officials concerned thus have no choice in this regard and it is therefore unreasonable to suggest that it was their own responsibility to pursue the matter with the French
authorities and courts of their own accord, assuming this would be possible.
Keywords:
domestic law; medical insurance; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4663
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to acknowledge the harassment that she alleges she suffered and to provide her with the full inquiry report drawn up following her internal complaint against a colleague.
Considerations 10-13
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that the position taken by the Organization in the preliminary inquiry report, the decision of 13 October 2017 and the responses given to the complainant’s request for review, namely that there was insufficient evidence of the conduct alleged by the complainant because any reasonable doubt had to weigh in Mr S.’s favour when it came to the decision whether to take disciplinary action against him, was incorrect. In Judgment 4289, consideration 10, the Tribunal stated as follows on precisely this point:
“[...] A staff member alleging harassment, and a fortiori in an investigation on a preliminary basis of the type being undertaken, does not need to establish, nor does the person or body evaluating the claim, that the facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that harassment occurred. While an allegation of harassment may found disciplinary proceedings in which the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ would apply, it has no application in the assessment of the claim of harassment where the staff member is seeking workplace protection or damages or both.”
(See, to the same effect, aforementioned Judgment 4207, consideration 20.)
In the present case, given that it was aware that the complainant objected to the impact of the harassment and that her harassment complaint was not confined to seeking the adoption of disciplinary measures against Mr S., the Organization should not have considered only the question of whether reasonable doubt existed but should instead have carried out a rigorous and thorough inquiry so as to resolve any credibility issues that it had identified in respect of what it saw as the contradictory accounts given by the complainant and Mr S. in their testimonies. In this respect, the Tribunal notes that the Organization appears to have attached little importance to the email exchanges that immediately followed the incident on 8 July 2017, the content of which strengthened the credibility of the complainant’s testimony while diminishing that of Mr S.’s subsequent account, or to the explanations provided by Mr S., called into question by the investigators themselves, as to the sexualised language he had used.
Nor could the Organization ignore the complainant’s perception of herself as a victim of harassment and her assertion that she had felt demeaned, degraded and humiliated by the behaviour to which she had been subjected. As the Tribunal similarly noted in Judgment 4541, consideration 8, the main factor in the recognition of harassment is the perception that the person concerned may reasonably and objectively have of acts or remarks liable to demean or humiliate her or him. In this respect, the Organization should have ascertained why the harassment complaint submitted by the complainant could not be deemed credible, especially as the complainant’s good faith was never called into doubt.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3312, 4207, 4471, 4541, 4547
Keywords:
harassment; organisation's duties;
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 4606
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-recognition of her illness as an occupational illness and requests that her sick leave entitlements be re-credited to her.
Consideration 14
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that international organizations must respond to requests from their staff members within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgment 3188, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3188
Keywords:
delay; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4601
135th Session, 2023
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him after an internal complaint of harassment was made against him.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he WTO’s assertion that those complaints did not lead to a full or thorough examination of the situation at the time because the procedure for dealing with harassment complaints was deficient is clearly not an argument capable of justifying that reversal. First, even assuming that the procedure at the time was inadequate, that cannot be relied on by the WTO since the Tribunal has consistently stated that international organisations are required to investigate accusations in this area and to provide protection for persons who claim they are the victims of harassment (see Judgments 2706, consideration 5, and 2552, consideration 3) and also to ensure that their investigative and internal appeal bodies for this purpose are functioning properly (see Judgments 3314, consideration 14, and 3069, consideration 12), these obligations being are part of a more general duty owed by those organisations to provide a safe and adequate environment for their staff, free from physical and psychological risk (see Judgments 4299, consideration 4, and 4171, consideration 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2552, 2706, 3069, 3314, 4171, 4299
Keywords:
investigation; organisation's duties;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 | next >
|
