Equal treatment (188, 189, 900, 663,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Equal treatment
Total judgments found: 235
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
The complainant concludes that the higher the grade, the higher the remuneration ought to be, so that a promotion should necessarily lead to a significant increase in pay.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that, as the organisation rightly points out in its submissions, the methodology that has been embodied and applied in the United Nations system for decades for determining salaries does not show a linear continuity between the responsibilities and levels of pay at the higher grades in category G and those at the lower grades in category P. Secondly, it is apparent from the submissions and the evidence that to accede to the complainant’s claim for a higher level of remuneration in his grade P.3 post than that resulting from the adjustment already awarded to him on the basis of the remuneration he received at grade G.6 would, on the contrary, amount to a deviation from the principle of equal pay for equal work when compared with other ITU staff members at grade P.3 who did not come from the General Service category.
In that regard, the Tribunal already recalled, in its Judgment 1196, consideration 19, that it is well known that different salary scales exist for the General Service category and the Professional category, which in itself neither is discriminatory nor constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment, emphasising the following:
“[A]ccording to consistent precedent the distinction between international and local staff is a fundamental one inherent in the very nature of an international organisation. It is due to the peculiar circumstances in which such organisations work and it is concurred in, with both its advantages and its drawbacks, by anyone who seeks employment with them, be it in one category of staff or in the other. Each category of staff offers career prospects and conditions of recruitment and pay that differ according to its own requirements, and a staff member may not plead breach of equal treatment if treated differently because he belongs to one category rather than to the other.”
Similarly, in Judgment 498, consideration 1, the Tribunal had made the following remarks in relation to those distinctions:
“G staff are recruited largely in [the headquarters country] or neighbouring countries. It is therefore only right that [...] their pay [...] should be in line with pay scales in [the headquarters country]. Officials in other categories, however, may come from and be required to serve anywhere in the world. [...] [The organisation] takes as its standard of comparison the best-paid national civil service. Consequently the allegation of unlawful discrimination fails.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1196
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general service category; professional category; promotion; salary;
Consideration 9
Extract:
In Judgment 498, the Tribunal had [...] noted that, contrary to what the complainant maintains in the present case, it was not unlawful for staff members in the Professional category and those in the General Service category to receive different amounts of family allowance, since the principle of equal treatment can only be applied to staff members who are in the same situation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 498
Keywords:
allowance; equal treatment; family allowance; general service category; professional category;
Judgment 4767
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]hat was not the case of the complainant who was therefore not in an identical or similar situation to that of those two other staff members and so cannot legitimately rely on a breach of the principle of equal treatment (see, for example, Judgments 4712, consideration 5, 4681, consideration 9, and 4498, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4498, 4681, 4712
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4766
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]hat was not the case of the complainant who was therefore not in an identical or similar situation to that of those two other staff members and so cannot legitimately rely on a breach of the principle of equal treatment (see, for example, Judgments 4712, consideration 5, 4681, consideration 9, and 4498, consideration 27).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4498, 4681, 4712
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the situation of the complainant differs from the one of the incumbent of [the] position [in question], her contention that the principle of equal treatment was breached is unsubstantiated, as well as her contention that she was discriminated against.
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
Judgment 4712
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his transposition into a new job group pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The fact that the complainant was transposed in the same grade and step as some staff members who prior to the reform were graded below him cannot be considered a demotion without reason. The reform combined some grades, which resulted in eliminating some distinctions; this does not appear disproportionate nor discriminatory against the complainant, considering that he was given the proper grade and step and that his previous salary was preserved. The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity. In the present case, firstly, the complainant is not in an identical or similar situation to that of staff members in different former career paths. Secondly, the Organisation took in due consideration the circumstance that, by combination of some previous career grades and by elimination of some previous distinctions, staff members having, prior to the reform, different grades and steps have, after the reform, the same grade and step. The former dissimilarity has been taken into account, as the complainant’s previous salary was preserved. The different rule which was applied to him was appropriate in view of that dissimilarity (see Judgment 4274, consideration 21, for a similar reasoning in a similar situation).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4274
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4681
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the ICC’s decision to reject her request to pay her the education grant in respect of her son for the school year 2018-2019.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The principle of equal treatment does not guarantee that all persons receive the same benefit but, rather, requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In the present case, the criteria for the payment of the education grant set forth in Staff Rule 103.18(d)(i) apply equally to all staff members of the ICC. Although, as pointed out by the complainant, this may result in a situation where children at approximately the same age, or even in the same classroom, may be treated differently with respect to the education grant, this is not due to any inconsistency or discrimination in the application of the criteria set forth in Staff Rule 103.18(d)(i), but to a clear and objective cut-off date established by that rule. The cut-off date distinguishes between children who turn five prior to or within the three-month window, and children who turn five outside the three-month window. Because these two categories of children are not in the same legal position, the principle of equal treatment is not violated when these two categories are treated differently.
Keywords:
allowance; education expenses; equal treatment;
Judgment 4580
135th Session, 2023
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the increase in their contributions to the Pension and Provident Fund such as it appears on their payslips for January 2021.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainants [...] submit that the pension contribution rate at the BIPM is now higher than the rates applied at other international organisations. However, as the complainants’ observation that the BIPM has thereby become less attractive further illustrates, this is in any event an argument based on policy, not law. From a legal perspective, the principle of equal treatment requires only that staff members be subject to the same rules if they are in identical or similar situations (see, for example, aforementioned Judgment 4277, consideration 21, and Judgments 3029, consideration 14, or 1990, consideration 7). This is plainly not the case for the staff members of different organisations who by definition are not governed by the same staff rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 3029, 4277
Keywords:
contribution rate; equal treatment;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 27
Extract:
Disparity of treatment is unlawful only where equal situations in fact and in law are treated in a different way. The principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally (see Judgment 4423, consideration 15). The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, that establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4238, consideration 5). Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 4101, consideration 9).
The situation of the beneficiaries of the Fund who get married, or remarried, after retirement, is not equivalent to the situation of beneficiaries who get married before retirement. Similarly, the situation of a person who marries a retired beneficiary of the Fund is not equivalent to the situation of a person who married a member of the Fund before their retirement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4238, 4423
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; pension;
Judgment 4423
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider as irreceivable his request to be entitled to 12 additional days of annual leave pursuant to Article 59(1)(b) of the Service Regulations.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[I]t is well established in the case law as reiterated in Judgment 4029, consideration 20, that “the principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally”. As the complainant is not in the same position in fact or law as the permanent employees aged 65 and over referred to in Article 59(1)(b), who have attained the normal retirement age, the decision not to grant him the benefit of the 12 days of additional annual leave does not constitute unequal treatment by the EPO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4029
Keywords:
annual leave; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 21
Extract:
In Judgment 107, the Tribunal held that for the right to take part in competitions to be effective, “it must necessarily include the right to demand that the arrangements for the competition ensure the appointment of the candidate who is really the best qualified. In other words, at every stage of the competition including the arrangements made, the conduct of the tests and the evaluation of their results, every candidate must be treated on an equal footing and with full impartiality” (see also Judgment 1071, consideration 3). In this case, it has not been established that the complainant was not treated on the same terms as the other candidates and she offers no proof that the successful candidate received preferential treatment. Asserting that the successful candidate had a good relationship with the chief of the department concerned, and that it was that chief who set the tests and evaluated the papers, is not sufficient to show that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107, 1071
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; selection procedure;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Every permanent employee in the Munich Office whom the Promotion Board recommended in December 2012 for promotion from grade A3 to A4 was promoted, except the complainant. The case law states that in most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved and that even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference (see, for example, Judgment 4022, under 6). The EPO submits that the relevant difference between the complainant’s situation and that of his colleagues who were promoted was his uncertain return to work. The factual inaccuracy of this statement, and the absence of any other justification, leads the Tribunal to conclude that there was no relevant difference that warranted the different treatment involved, and that the decision not to promote the complainant was taken in breach of the principle of equal treatment or equality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4022
Keywords:
equal treatment; promotion;
Judgment 4361
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has long recognised that the principle of equal treatment cannot be invoked to protect misconduct (see Judgment 3575, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein). By parity of reasoning, it cannot be invoked in relation to suspension during investigation of misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
Judgment 4359
131st Session, 2021
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has long recognised that the principle of equal treatment cannot be invoked to protect misconduct (see Judgment 3575, consideration 5, and the cases cited therein). By parity of reasoning, it cannot be invoked in relation to suspension during investigation of misconduct.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Consideration 21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the freezing of the pension point breaches the principle of equality by creating inequality between retired and serving staff members. Reference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14, 3787, under 3, and 3900, under 12). Retired staff members are not in the same position as serving staff members, and the difference in their treatment relates to this difference in situation. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the principle of equality has not been breached here.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3900
Keywords:
equal treatment; pension; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4274
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his classification at grade 5 in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 21
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, 3787, under 3, and 3900, under 12).
[...]
However, suffice it to observe that the complainant is not in an identical or similar situation to that of staff members in the former career paths Fc and G. The different rule applied to him is appropriate in view of that dissimilarity.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3900
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4273
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194 under 6(a), 2313, under 5, 3029, under 14, 3787, under 3, and 3900, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3900
Keywords:
equal treatment;
Judgment 4247
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the decision to dismiss her amounts to unequal treatment, alleging that other officials who have committed fraud and other forms of misconduct were never sanctioned. This submission is rejected. Leaving aside the fact that she has not substantiated that those officials were similarly situated in fact and law, the Tribunal’s case law consistently holds that the principle of equal treatment cannot ordinarily be invoked to challenge a finding of misconduct (see, for example, Judgment 3575, consideration 5, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3575
Keywords:
equal treatment; misconduct;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts which establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4067, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4067
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
Judgment 4157
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the moral injury she suffered because her evaluation for 2013 was irregular and contests the partial modification thereof.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Reference must be made to the Tribunal’s consistent precedent that “the principle of equal treatment requires, on the one hand, that officials in identical or similar situations be subject to the same rules and, on the other, that officials in dissimilar situations be governed by different rules defined so as to take account of this dissimilarity (see, for example, Judgments 1990, under 7, 2194, under 6(a), 2313, under 5, or 3029, under 14)” (see Judgments 3787, under 3, and 3902, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2194, 2313, 3029, 3787, 3902
Keywords:
equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords:
discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >
|
