Budgetary reasons (380,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Budgetary reasons
Total judgments found: 51

1, 2, 3 | next >

• 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 2

  Extract:

  Staff Regulation 11.2.2 relevantly states that the end of a fixed-term contract at its normal term does not create a right for the employee to have his or her contract automatically renewed or extended. The Tribunal’s case law states that notwithstanding a provision such as Staff Regulation 11.2.2 or a similar provision in a complainant’s terms of appointment, the wide discretion an international organization enjoys in deciding whether or not to renew a fixed-term appointment is subject to only limited review as the Tribunal respects the organization’s freedom to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see Judgment 4503, consideration 7). However, the discretion is not unfettered and the Tribunal will set aside such a decision taken without authority; in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; if the decision rested on an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence. The case law further states that the Tribunal’s role in reviewing a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract for budgetary reasons is limited (see, for example, Judgment 3367, consideration 11).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3367, 4503
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that in its report, the Commission correctly referred, among other things, to Judgment 3163, in which the Tribunal considered a contention that alleged lack of funding for the position of the complainant in that case was due to the diversion of funds for that position, and although funds could have been available, the organization chose for a dubious reason not to use them. In consideration 8, the Tribunal stated the following, and that reasoning can be applied to the present case: “[…] It is unnecessary to descend into greater detail about whether funds were or were not available to fund the complainant’s position beyond the beginning of 2010. That is because this Tribunal has set its face against assessing the exercise of a discretionary power, such as the power not to renew a fixed-term contract, unless it is demonstrated that the competent body acted on some wrong principle, breached procedural rules, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3, 1262, under 4, and 2975, under 15). The substance of the complainant’s case on this issue is that other decisions could have been made which would have resulted in funding being available for the position. The error of fact identified in the complainant’s submissions does not involve the identification of a material fact assumed by the decision-maker to exist, which did not exist. Rather, she identifies facts which would sustain a decision other than the decision actually made. To impugn the exercise of a discretionary decision-making power by reference to, and based on, the factual matrix in which the decision was made, a complainant must demonstrate something more than that other decisions might reasonably have been made on the known facts. It is necessary to establish that the exercise of the discretionary power miscarried because the decision-maker was led into error by proceeding on a misunderstanding about what the material facts were. As the complainant has failed to do so, this plea must be rejected.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 1262, 2975, 3163
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; discretion; fixed-term; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant refers to consideration 13 of Judgment 3586 in which the Tribunal considered that “[w]hether funds were known to have been available to fund the extension of the complainant [in that case]’s contract [was] a question of fact, which the [internal appeal body] had to determine” and that “[the internal appeal body] could not have simply relied on [the organization]’s assertion that grants were received for specified purposes that did not include funding for the complainant’s post”. It is apparent to the Tribunal that this is the exercise the Appeals Commission conducted in the internal appeal procedure at hand. The Commission assessed the relevant documents and facts it had gathered from the Federation and from the interviews it conducted, including with the complainant, it made a finding that “no funding was available for the [...] position held by the [complainant].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; internal appeals body; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4195

  
  128th Session, 2019
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  In respect of the solidarity principle, and with an eye to the obligation to maintain sound financial management of the Organisation, the President proposed these new measures to balance the costs and benefits to all staff and their spouses.

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal considers that the conditions under which health insurance for employees’ spouses is provided do not give rise to an acquired right. The Organisation is entitled to adjust the contribution rate if there are compelling reasons (including budgetary reasons), within reasonable limits. The Tribunal is satisfied in this case that the increased contribution rate resulting from the additional contribution for spouses is reasonable, justified and modest.

  Keywords:

  acquired right; budgetary reasons; health insurance;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4077

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The UPU applies for interpretation and review of Judgment 3928 alleging errors of fact, inter alia, and asserts that it is impossible to give effect to the Tribunal’s order to reinstate the complainant. The complainant applies for execution of Judgment 3928.

  Consideration 25

  Extract:

  [T]he [organization] could not refer to the complainant’s alleged misconduct as a reason not to reinstate him as no disciplinary proceeding has occurred in that regard, so misconduct has never been proven. It is all the more grave when considering that the alleged reason for the abolition of the posts was because of financial constraints. The abolition of a post can never be based on a staff member’s conduct, as that would constitute a hidden sanction. The [organization]’s presentation before the Council of Administration constituted a breach of the duty of care and of the adversarial principle, as the complainant was not given any opportunity to defend himself and his reputation from the allegations. The UPU must respect the dignity of its staff and preserve their reputation.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; adversarial proceedings; budgetary reasons; due process; duty of care; hidden disciplinary measure; misconduct; reinstatement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4028

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge Service Order No.14/10 changing the health insurance scheme at the ITU, as well as individual decisions implementing that service order.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [A]s the complainants point out, the burden of the new measures is borne by the insured persons alone. It must however be remembered that, despite a fall in its income resulting from a zero growth budget and the drop in contributions from some member States, the ITU continues to fund 50 per cent of the scheme for staff members and two thirds of it for retirees. As the defendant organisation explains, the new measures which have been put in place seek to maintain the financial equilibrium of the new insurance plan in order to ensure its continuity and stability while respecting the principles of solidarity and mutualisation of risks.
  In Judgment 1241, under 19, the Tribunal considered that “the change the complainants object[ed] to [was] part of wider reforms the [organisation] made to put the [health insurance] scheme on a sounder financial footing over the long term” and that the organisation in question was “right to pursue that aim by all suitable means at its disposal, [including by] measures to ensure that, in keeping with the notion of mutual aid, everyone bears a fair share of costs”.
  This consideration applies mutatis mutandis to the present complaints.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1241
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; health insurance; medical expenses;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3929

  
  125th Session, 2018
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law: “[w]hether the post was abolished for financial reasons is a question of fact. Those facts were within the knowledge of [the organization] and it must show that when it advanced financial reasons as a ground for the abolition of the complainant’s post this was genuine. It has not done so. In the absence of that evidence, it is determined that the complainant’s post was unlawfully abolished and the claim on this ground is well founded” (see Judgment 3688, under 18). In the Tribunal’s view, the UPU has not presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the abolition of posts was for urgent financial reasons.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3928

  
  125th Session, 2018
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law: “[w]hether the post was abolished for financial reasons is a question of fact. Those facts were within the knowledge of [the organization] and it must show that when it advanced financial reasons as a ground for the abolition of the complainant’s post this was genuine. It has not done so. In the absence of that evidence, it is determined that the complainant’s post was unlawfully abolished and the claim on this ground is well founded” (see Judgment 3688, under 18). In the Tribunal’s view, the UPU has not presented sufficient evidence to support its assertion that the abolition of posts was for urgent financial reasons.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3921

  
  125th Session, 2018
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The case law concerning the Tribunal’s consideration of changes to salary structures and grading systems makes clear that the role of the Tribunal is limited and the discretionary power of the organisation to make such changes based on policy or budgetary considerations must ordinarily be respected (see, for example, Judgments 1118, considerations 19 to 20, and 3274, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1118, 3274
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; discretion; judicial review; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3920

  
  125th Session, 2018
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [W]hen a post is abolished for financial reasons it is incumbent on the organisation to demonstrate that this was genuine, given that the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the organisation (see Judgment 3688, consideration 18).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; budgetary reasons; burden of proof;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3576

  
  121st Session, 2016
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract due to budgetary constraints.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3367

  
  118th Session, 2014
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint filed against the decision to not renew the complainant’s contract on the ground that his employment under short-term contracts was lawful.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal’s role in reviewing decisions not to renew contracts for budgetary reasons is extremely limited (see, for example, Judgments 1044, under 3; 2362, under 7; and 3103, under 8)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1044, 2362, 3103
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3055

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; complaint allowed; decision quashed; separation from service; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2907

  
  108th Session, 2010
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
  

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; case law; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2682

  
  104th Session, 2008
  International Olive Oil Council
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "As the Tribunal has already indicated in [...] Judgment 832, when weighing up the consequences of a breach of an acquired right, the financial situation of the organisation applying the terms of appointment in question cannot be discounted."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 832
  

  Keywords:

  acquired right; breach; budgetary reasons; condition; consequence; organisation's interest;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2633

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "Where a decision to introduce a new pension scheme is taken on grounds of financial necessity, such as the need to address the rising cost of pensions, the Tribunal cannot consider it to be invalid merely because it leads to a situation that is less favourable to employees."

  Keywords:

  amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; decision; decision quashed; grounds; increase; injury; judicial review; official; organisation's interest; pension; pension adjustment system;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2535

  
  101st Session, 2006
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "In the complainant's case, the post he was assigned to [...] was classified as P-5 as of 9 September 1999. [...] However, apparently because the budget did not provide funds for the post until January 2000, he was not in fact promoted until 1 March 2000. The lack of budgetary provision is not a reason which can be validly invoked by an international organisation to deny a staff member a promotion to which he or she would otherwise have a right and to deny him or her the salary which is commensurate with the duties of the post occupied."

  Keywords:

  budgetary reasons; date; delay; effect; grade; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; right; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2420

  
  98th Session, 2005
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  "[T]he fact that financial considerations were taken into account does not, in itself, invalidate the decision setting the salary scale, provided that the other reasons justifying the decision are correct. In the present case, the evidence on file shows that the scale ultimately adopted was justified by the desire to reduce the imbalances resulting from the application of the previous decisions penalising staff in the higher categories, to restore the remuneration margins in relation to US federal civil servants to values within the range of 110 to 120 and to move closer to attaining the objective of an overall margin level of 115."

  Keywords:

  adjustment; budgetary reasons; decision; grounds; professional category; rate; salary; scale;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2097

  
  92nd Session, 2002
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."

  Keywords:

  amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2072

  
  91st Session, 2001
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant benefited from a voluntary separation programme that the organization had had to implement because of financial difficulties. He is challenging the refusal to consider his request for re-employment. "The organization cannot be taken to task for not considering him for [vacant] posts for which he had not applied, or for not offering him another [post] while it was still in financial straits."

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; budgetary reasons; competition; failure to answer claim; participation; post; refusal; reinstatement; request by a party; separation from service; vacancy; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1821

  
  86th Session, 1999
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "The principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organisations to set adjustments in staff pay [...] may be concisely stated as follows: (a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law [...]. (b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are 'stable, foreseeable and clearly understood' [...]. (c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure [...]. (d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable [...], the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference [...]." (See cited case law.)

  Keywords:

  adjustment; budgetary reasons; case law; condition; coordinated organisations; cost-of-living increase; criteria; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; exception; executive body; good faith; grounds; international civil service principles; limits; organisation's duties; patere legem; rule of another organisation; salary; scale;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1800

  
  86th Session, 1999
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The complainants' [...] plea is that the sole purpose of the change in the rules on the [post adjustment] index [decided by the ICSC] was to save money. The Tribunal need only quote the reply it gave to that argument in Judgment 1776: 'If the new method is lawful the fact that applying it saves member States money cannot in itself be a flaw.' And the evidence suggests no misuse of authority by the [ICSC], which, against the odds, tries to find from time to time objective criteria for reckoning post adjustment throughout the common system."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1776
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; case law; icsc decision; member state; misuse of authority; official; post adjustment; reckoning; right; salary;
  

1, 2, 3 | next >