|
|
 |
|
|
Deduction (360,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Deduction
Total judgments found: 31
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4864
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to withhold two months’ salary to comply with a national Court order.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; debt; deduction; salary;
Judgment 4817
138th Session, 2024
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns a decision ordering a new investigation into her alleged misconduct and suspending the disciplinary measures pending the new investigation and a new decision in the matter. She contests this decision to the extent it maintained the finding that she committed misconduct.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Considering the unclear evidence in this regard, the Tribunal considers that, in the event the deductions have been made and have not already been reimbursed in full, the Organization should immediately reimburse all the deductions made, as they have no legal basis, since the disciplinary measures have been suspended. Considering that to date there are no findings of misconduct, the disciplinary measures cannot stand by themselves and their suspension must be fully retroactive.
Keywords:
deduction; disciplinary measure; retroactivity; suspensive action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint allowed; deduction; disciplinary measure; double jeopardy; investigation; manifest error; presumption of innocence; suspensive action;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant contends that the impugned decision considered her misconduct as already proved and limited the scope of the new investigation. In addition, she contends that, even though the disciplinary measures, issued by the memorandum of 8 May 2018, no longer have a legal basis and have been suspended, she has not been reimbursed in full for the deductions from her salary applied from the date of the disciplinary decision until the date of the decision to suspend the disciplinary measures. The Tribunal finds that the impugned decision is potentially apt to immediately and adversely affect the complainant with regard to the alleged non-reimbursement of the salary deductions during the aforementioned period and the alleged improper limitation of the scope of the new investigation. In conclusion, the complaint is receivable and must be assessed on the merits. The Tribunal’s case law holds that the necessary, yet sufficient, condition of a cause of action is a reasonable presumption that the decision will bring injury. The decision must have some present effect on the complainant’s position (see Judgment 3337, consideration 7). This condition is met in the present case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3337
Keywords:
cause of action; deduction; disciplinary measure; injury;
Judgment 4435
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who is a former permanent employee of the European Patent Office, challenges the deductions from his remuneration that were made in respect of his absences for strike participation as well as the lawfulness of the general normative decisions on which those deductions were based.
Consideration 19
Extract:
In circumstances where the deduction actually made for specified conduct was unlawful under the subsisting Service Regulations, it is appropriate to apply the pre-existing Service Regulations (see Judgment 365, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 365
Keywords:
applicable law; deduction; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 14-16
Extract:
The question that immediately arises, in the Tribunal’s view, is whether Article 65(1)(c) is punitive. In its pleas, the EPO acknowledges that the 1/30 method would still be used to calculate salary deductions for other authorized absences which include unpaid leave on personal grounds, parental leave and family leave. The EPO argues absences on such leave include weekend days as part of, to use the EPO’s expression, the absence period (because such leave must be for a minimum of 14 days), which justifies the use of the 1/30 method. But this, in the context of the present discussion, is a flawed argument. To speak of an “absence period” obscures the fact that if, for example, a member of staff was on 14 days authorized leave on personal grounds, she or he would, at least ordinarily, be absent from work for 10 working days. In relation to each of those working days 1/30 of the monthly salary is deducted. Conceptually, weekend days are days of rest for which the employer pays.
Moreover, if in any respect, the deduction for working days on strike could materially exceed, in aggregate, the amount a staff member would have earned had they worked, then the provision is punitive in character. The complainant has demonstrated this is so by reference to an example involving a strike for an entire month where the number of working days for that month exceeds 20 (a common occurrence). In such a circumstance, the amount deducted for working days on strike for that month by application of Article 65(1)(c) would exceed the monthly salary payable for that month.
While the following, of itself, does not establish Article 65(1)(c) is punitive, it is nonetheless the position that the amount deducted for each day of unauthorised absence (which is, prima facie, misconduct) is the same as the amount deducted for each day a member of staff is on strike, which is entirely lawful conduct. This lends support to a conclusion that Article 65(1)(c) is punitive. The EPO relies on observations in Judgment 566, consideration 5, in which the Tribunal said: “Even where a strike is not an abuse of right an organisation would of course be entitled to make special rules on salary deductions different from the rules on absence from duty for other reasons”. However, these observations cannot be taken to be a license to adopt rules in relation to salary deductions for absences on strike which are of a punitive character.
Keywords:
deduction; hidden disciplinary measure; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; deduction; hidden disciplinary measure; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 4433
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to treat his participation in a strike as an unauthorised absence.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike; unauthorised absence;
Judgment 4428
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of her request to combine a half day of absence for strike participation with a half day of leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 4421
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deductions made from her remuneration in respect of her absences due to participation in strikes.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 3691
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the salary deductions made following their participation in strikes.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Employees on strike must be considered to be in service with regard to social security coverage and the days of strike are counted as regular days with regard to the accumulation of pension.
Keywords:
deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainants claim that the salary deductions, made as a consequence of their participation in the strikes, were not made in good faith and should be reimbursed as the strikes were rendered pointless by the unlawfulness of the decision. This claim is unfounded. The salary deductions were the necessary consequence of the complainants’ participation in the strikes in accordance with the principle of payment for services rendered. The reasons for the strikes and the complainants’ individual decisions to participate in the strikes are irrelevant. The deductions “merely give effect to a general rule, lawfully applied in the Organisation, which does not allow remuneration to be paid for services not rendered” (see Judgment 2516, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2516
Keywords:
deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 3605
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him retroactively to UNIDO Headquarters in Vienna and to recalculate his salary and allowances accordingly, leading to a deduction from his remuneration.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; deduction; reassignment; salary;
Judgment 3517
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, who were on maternity leave in 2011, impugn the decision to pay a collective reward to staff in active service during 2011 but to make a deduction for them pro rata temporis.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; deduction; fringe benefits; joinder; maternity leave;
Judgment 3369
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the application of deductions to her dependant’s allowance for participation in a strike and the amount deducted from most elements of her remuneration.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; deduction; right to strike; strike;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he decision taken by the EPO to apply a deduction of one twenty-fourth was due to the calculation, based on arithmetically irreproachable principles, that the complainant had absented herself, while participating in an eight-hour strike, for a period equivalent to 1.25 of her average working day, having regard to the specific terms of her part-time employment regime. In so doing, the EPO sought to implement an approach based on proportionality which led it to conclude, as stated in its submissions, that the remuneration of an employee who is absent due to a strike must be reduced by an amount equivalent to the duration of such absence as a proportion of the employee’s normal working hours.
Such an approach is certainly quite understandable in terms of equity and expediency. However, the Tribunal is bound to observe ...] that this approach is legally inconsistent with the applicable statutory provisions, which are based on a different perspective in this regard."
Keywords:
deduction; right to strike; strike;
Judgment 3100
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; deduction; salary;
Judgment 3020
111th Session, 2011
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
WTO Staff Rule 106.11 provides that "[n]ational income tax on salaries, allowances, indemnities or grants paid by the WTO shall be refunded to the staff member by the WTO." The complainant considers that her salary is indirectly taxed, because it is included in the assessment of her husband's rate of income tax. The Organization rejected her claims for reimbursement of what she describes as "over-taxation by the Swiss tax authorities". The Tribunal holds that "[t]he refusal to provide compensation for the additional amount of tax unfairly levied on the couple's income solely because of the complainant's earned income, although it was exempt from taxation, would have a paradoxical effect. A rule designed to guarantee equal wages would lead to unjustifiable inequality between an official whose earned income was unduly taxed although it was by law exempt from taxation and an official whose tax-exempt salary was taken into account for assessment purposes, thus reducing his/her spouse's disposable income after tax and therefore his/her economic capacity from which the official living with him/her naturally benefits. The impugned decision is therefore unlawful."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WTO Staff Rule 106.11
Keywords:
allowance; breach; compensatory allowance; decision quashed; deduction; domestic law; effect; equal treatment; grounds; marital status; official; organisation; payment; purpose; rate; reckoning; recovery of overpayment; reduction of salary; refund; refusal; request by a party; safeguard; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; written rule;
Judgment 3019
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Automatic coverage of spouses under the Organisation's long-term health insurance / Obligation to file a waiver declaration.
"The automatic coverage applied by the Implementing Rules cannot be deemed unreasonable. It is clear that under the system chosen by the Organisation some staff members may be slightly financially penalised if they fail to opt out of the scheme, as their automatic coverage will entail consequent deductions from their salaries. However, in evaluating the possible outcome resulting from automatic coverage and that resulting from a lack of coverage, the Organisation evidently considered that the outcome could be worse in the latter situation as staff members who neglected to enrol their spouses in the long-term care insurance scheme could suffer the severe financial consequences of not being insured when the need arose, and the Tribunal cannot regard the Organisation's choice as unreasonable."
Keywords:
deduction; dependant; health insurance; insurance; medical expenses; organisation; practice; salary; social benefits;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The case law allows that, where it appears that a final decision will not be made within a reasonable time, a staff member may file a complaint with the Tribunal (see Judgments 1968, under 5, and 2170, under 9 and 16). By the time the complainant filed her complaint, four months had elapsed since she had been informed that the Headquarters Board of Appeal had finalised its report. At that stage, it did not appear that a decision would be taken within a reasonable time, and, indeed, it was not."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1986, 2170
Keywords:
amount; decision; deduction; delay; direct appeal to tribunal; internal appeal; moral injury; reasonable time;
Judgment 2783
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-14
Extract:
The complainant, who parks his car in the Vienna International Centre (VIC), is challenging the decision to double the monthly parking fee effective 1 January 2007.
"In the present case, the impugned decision affects the complainant not as a staff member of the Agency but in his capacity as a user of the VIC garage. Moreover, the financial conditions governing the use of this garage, which is merely a facility offered to the staff of the various international organisations occupying the VIC, do not form part of the complainant's terms of appointment or of the Agency's Staff Regulations.
'While the payment of the fee for the use of the garage does in fact take the form of a direct deduction from the Agency's staff members' salaries, this is simply a means of payment adopted for convenience sake, which does not in any way alter the nature of the fee and does not, in particular, have the effect of incorporating it into the complainant's terms of employment. In this respect, the deduction is comparable to those which an employer may effect from an employee's wages for the purpose of paying, for example, a tax or contribution that is levied at source; here too, the fact that the tax or contribution is so deducted does not afford grounds for considering it to be part of the employee's terms of employment.
This dispute does not therefore fall within the scope of the [...] provisions of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; amount; competence of tribunal; condition; contract; deduction; effect; facilities; iloat statute; increase; official; payment; provision; salary; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant; tax; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2440
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
An international organisation cannot presume that a staff member participated in industrial action, and withold part of his/her salary, if it does not have proof of his/her participation in the collective actions.
Keywords:
deduction; entitlement for service rendered; evidence; organisation's duties; participation; right to strike; salary; strike;
Judgment 1849
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 18-19
Extract:
"The Tribunal considers that, in accordance with its jurisprudence, if an official receives an overpayment by mistake it should be reimbursed. Nevertheless, the organization should take into account any circumstances which would make it unfair or unjust to require repayment. [...] In the Tribunal's opinion there is no indebtedness by the complainant to the organization. It was responsible for making payments on behalf of the United Nations, but has been fully reimbursed. The organization therefore, was not entitled to withhold the grants due or make deductions from salary under rule 380.5.2 since the complainant was not indebted to it."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 380.5.2 OF WHO
Keywords:
amount; criteria; debt; deduction; equity; exception; recovery of overpayment; refund; unjust enrichment;
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 1110
71st Session, 1991
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
In Judgment 996 the Tribunal set aside the decision to dismiss the complainant and ordered his reinstatement "with full arrears of salary and allowances". In execution of that judgment the ESO reinstated him as a member of its health insurance scheme as from the date of dismissal and deducted the corresponding premiums from his pay. The complainant's objections to the deductions are mistaken. The intention of Judgment 996 was, as far as possible, to put the complainant in the same position as if he had not been dismissed. The Tribunal is satisfied that in respect of health insurance the organisation has complied with the letter and the spirit of the judgment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 996
Keywords:
application for interpretation; consequence; contributions; deduction; health insurance; insurance; interpretation; judgment of the tribunal; medical expenses; payment; reinstatement; salary;
Judgment 1041
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-4, Summary
Extract:
The complainant, a member of the EPO staff, challenges the lawfulness of deductions made from his allowances following strike action. Relying on Article 65(1)(b) of the Service Regulations he says that "remuneration" in that provision covers basic salary alone. But Article 64(2) says that "remuneration shall comprise basic salary and, where appropriate, any allowances"; the plea fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLES 64.2 AND 65.1(B) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
allowance; base salary; deduction; definition; right to strike; salary; strike;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant submits that, in keeping with epo practice, the deduction for work stoppage should have been limited to basic salary. "In making deductions from pay in 1983 on account of a strike in 1982, [the EPO did] leave untouched the dependants' expatriation and housing allowances. But the precedent does not hold good: in dealing with the matter again in October 1985 the organisation refrained from deciding on the deductions it would make from staff pay in the event of future strikes."
Keywords:
allowance; base salary; deduction; practice; right to strike; salary; strike;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
