Rules of the organisation (771,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Rules of the organisation
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 4856

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [T]he FAO/WFP’s regulatory framework prohibits a staff member from engaging in any political activities or being a candidate for a public office of a political character. WFP Human Resources (HR) Manual Section I.2.2.3 relevantly states that staff members wishing to submit their candidacy for a public office, provided that it is not political in nature, must obtain prior authorization from the Executive Director. This section however refers to Staff Regulation 301.1.7, which states that any staff member who becomes a candidate for public office of a political character, while still employed with the WFP, shall resign from the Organization. This makes it obvious that a staff member’s participation in such political activity is inimical to the interest of the WFP and is strictly forbidden. Notably, the Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 1061, consideration 5, that the reason for the provision in Staff Regulation 301.1.7 is that an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party and that integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him or her to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1061
  

  Keywords:

  conflict of interest; international civil service principles; organisation's interest; outside activity; political activity; rules of the organisation; staff member's duties;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4840

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract due to underperformance after placing her on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
  “An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
  In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
  “However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
  ‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
  This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
  

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  [I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation;
  

  Consideration 29

  Extract:

  Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
  “Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
  An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
  In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
  

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  [A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
  It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  Considerations 23-24

  Extract:

  [T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
  In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
  “As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
  Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2916, 3026, 3282
  

  Keywords:

  breach; due process; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service; warning; work appraisal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  breach; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; duty to substantiate decision; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; patere legem; performance evaluation; rules of the organisation; unsatisfactory service;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal finds that [the Office of the Inspector General] conducted a thorough review of the voluminous documentation submitted by the complainant and a detailed analysis of her allegations. [The Office of the Inspector General]’s conclusion that the complainant’s harassment complaint should be closed was based on the results of its preliminary assessment that “there was no prima facie case of harassment, abuse of authority, retaliation or other misconduct”. In determining that the complaint should be closed for a lack of a prima facie case, [the Office of the Inspector General] acted within its authority and fully in line with the provisions of the [the Office of the Inspector General] Investigation Guidelines […].

  Keywords:

  investigation; investigative body; rules of the organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4233

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Office of Epizootics
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award him compensation for the moral harassment which he alleges he has suffered.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  It is well established that an international organisation has a duty to its staff members to investigate claims of harassment thoroughly and objectively (see, for example, Judgments 3071, consideration 36, 3314, consideration 14, 3337, consideration 11, and 4013, consideration 10). The OIE is under such an obligation even though the existing rules do not provide for any specific procedure to deal with harassment complaints. Indeed, it would be desirable for the Organisation to address this matter and to adopt such a procedure, possibly drawing on those which exist in most international organisations and on the case law of the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3071, 3314, 3337, 4013
  

  Keywords:

  harassment; inquiry; investigation; rules of the organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3365

  
  118th Session, 2014
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing his harassment complaint and his allegations of denial of justice.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The Policy on the Prevention of Harassment at WHO, which entered into force on 7 September 2010, provides in paragraph 8.5 that, “should the RBA or HBA receive an appeal which includes an allegation of harassment […], it shall deal with this aspect of the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Procedure”.
  In addition, the Provisional Addendum of 22 November 2010 to the HBA Rules of Procedure (Revision 1) was introduced as a temporary measure applicable until such time as the HBA adapted its Rules of Procedure to the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment.
  According to this addendum, if an appeal filed with the HBA contains an allegation of harassment, the Board must refer this aspect of the appeal to the Director of the IOS and hold the appeal in abeyance pending notification of the Director-General’s final decision on the matter. Upon receipt of the Director-General’s decision (including the IOS’ report if applicable), the HBA recommences its consideration of the original appeal. The addendum states that the HBA “shall be guided” by the Director-General’s decision with respect to the aspect of the appeal that concerns harassment.

  Keywords:

  harassment; rules of the organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3240

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal found that the Organization had acted in breach of its own rules on performance appraisal and probationary periods.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance evaluation; probationary period; rules of the organisation;