Information note (224,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Information note
Total judgments found: 9

• Judgment 2760

  
  105th Session, 2008
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The complainant, a Canadian national, married a person of the same sex, as she is permitted to do under the law in force in Canada. She immediately informed the Agency of her new marital status and applied for the dependency benefits to which staff members with a spouse are eligible, but her application was rejected. The defendant points out that, for the purpose of applying its Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, it has a definition of the term "spouse" which refers only to the partners of a union between persons of opposite sex, since the Guide to Dependency Benefits, which was drawn up for the staff, indicates that the term "'[s]pouse' for all purposes of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules is defined to mean the husband or wife". "But this mere information document, which was prepared by the Administration and has no normative value, clearly cannot prescribe the adoption of a restrictive definition which does not appear in the applicable texts themselves.
  Furthermore, while the Tribunal notes that the same definition was also given in a Notice to the Staff of 11 July 2005, that document likewise could not narrow the scope of the concept of 'spouse' to which the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules refer. Although the secretariat of an organisation may always circulate a Notice to the Staff to clarify certain provisions of its staff regulations and rules, such a notice cannot impose on staff any restrictive conditions other than those stipulated in the provisions themselves."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Guide to Dependency Benefits
  
  

  Keywords:

  administrative instruction; applicable law; binding character; condition; definition; dependant; domestic law; enforcement; family allowance; information note; limits; marital status; organisation; precedence of rules; provision; publication; purpose; refusal; request by a party; same-sex marriage; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2553

  
  101st Session, 2006
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  Harassment is described in IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922 as follows:
  "Harassment is any conduct or comment made by a staff member or group of staff members on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles or causes personal humiliation. It can take many different forms, including, for example: threatening comments, whether oral or written, or threatening physical behaviour; intimidation, blackmail or coercion; making deliberate insults related to a person's personal or professional competence; humiliating, degrading or making offensive or abusive personal remarks to someone; undermining or isolating people; or making it impossible for staff to do their job by, for example, withholding information."
  "This is a very broad definition, no doubt designedly so. It requires reasonable interpretation and application to the circumstances of each particular case. It contains both subjective and objective elements: did the alleged victim actually feel humiliated, offended or intimidated by the impugned conduct, and was such conduct, viewed objectively, of a nature reasonably to humiliate, offend or intimidate? Where the impugned conduct consists of words, although truth will not always constitute a complete defence, an inquiry as to whether such words may or may not reasonably be true is obviously relevant. Likewise, an inquiry as to whether the speaker's words can reasonably be seen as a reference to the performance of duties and are not merely gratuitous comments will be germane. Personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity as well as the reasonableness of the sensitivities of the alleged victim, must also be weighed in considering both questions. Similarly, any previous history of relations between the alleged victim and the alleged offender may be relevant and, while a single injurious action may by itself be enough to constitute harassment, an otherwise apparently inoffensive comment may, with repetition, become a legitimate source of grievance.
  In the final analysis, the question as to whether any particular act or series of acts amounts to harassment is one of fact to be answered only after careful consideration of the above factors and an examination of all the surrounding circumstances."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: IAEA staff notice SEC/NOT/1922
  
  

  Keywords:

  breach; conduct; continuing breach; criteria; definition; difference; harassment; information note; interpretation; judicial review; moral injury; official; organisation's duties; purpose; qualifications; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; working relations; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2493

  
  100th Session, 2006
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The complainants were issued a written warning on the grounds that they had participated in industrial action which management considered to be unlawful and that caused them to be absent from duty without authorisation. They contend that the Director General had no authority to decide whether the collective action was illegal. "There is no doubt that in the absence of any statutory provisions or collective agreement between the Agency and the staff representatives, it is up to the Director General to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent actions which he deems unlawful, to warn members of staff against participating in such actions and, if necessary, to lay down guidelines for the exercise of the collective rights of staff in accordance with the general principles of international civil service law. From this point of view, one cannot object to the Director General's legitimate right to take action when he, 'in the absence of an agreement with the unions', issued on 13 March 2003 - in other words, three days after the start of the industrial action - an Office Notice setting out 'General provisions applicable in the event of a strike at Eurocontrol'. Nevertheless, the general measures taken by the administration and the individual decisions taken to implement those measures must not have the effect of restricting the exercise of the collective rights of members of staff in such a way as to deprive them of all substance."

  Keywords:

  applicable law; collective rights; competence; condition; consequence; disciplinary measure; effect; enforcement; executive head; general decision; general principle; individual decision; information note; international civil service principles; limits; no provision; organisation's duties; provision; right to strike; staff regulations and rules; staff representative; staff union; staff union agreement; strike; unauthorised absence; warning;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2480

  
  100th Session, 2006
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 2 and 4

  Extract:

  The complainant takes issue with an ILO circular which concerned matrimonial property rights. It informed foreign nationals, like himself, who were married outside Switzerland with no marriage contract, that Switzerland was treating such persons as subject to the Swiss regime of joint ownership of property acquired after marriage (participation aux acquêts). He holds that by accepting such "instructions" from the Swiss Government, the Organization caused him undue financial hardship and "deep moral suffering". The Tribunal considers that the circular was "simply the transmission by the ILO to its staff members resident in Geneva of information received from the local 'Chambre des notaires'. [...] The publication by an international organisation for its staff members of purely objective information of this sort relating to local private law is manifestly not a matter falling within the Tribunal's field of competence."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: ILO Circular No. 451, Series 6
  
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; domestic law; headquarters official; information note; marital status; material injury; moral injury; nationality; official; organisation; publication; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2473

  
  99th Session, 2005
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  "The Organization contends that since the impugned decision was notified to the complainant on 21 November 2003, he should have filed his complaint with the Tribunal, according to Article VII, paragraph 2, of its Statute, within ninety days after the date of notification, that is to say by 19 February 2004 at the latest and not in July 2004 as was the case.
  Contrary to the defendant's allegation, the complainant asserts that he received the decision dated 21 November 2003 only on 28 April 2004 following a request he made to the Director-General on 15 April 2004. Since the defendant, which bears the burden of proof in this respect, has not proved that the notification actually occurred on 21 November 2003, the Tribunal must accept the date of 28 April 2004 indicated on the note transmitting a copy of the impugned decision to the complainant, and it will therefore consider that the complaint he filed on 26 July 2004 fell within the required time limit."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute
  
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; complainant; complaint; date; date of notification; decision; executive head; iloat; iloat statute; information note; lack of evidence; mandatory time limit; organisation's duties; request by a party; staff member's duties; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2362

  
  97th Session, 2004
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 8-9

  Extract:

  The complainant's candidacy to a vacant post was rejected. "She states that her immediate supervisor [had] received a minute from HRD, instructing her that in preparing her shortlist of candidates, priority should be given to internal candidates, then to those persons who had been working for the Office for an extended period on what are regarded as 'precarious' conditions, such as herself, and lastly to other external candidates. She contends that, contrary to the instructions in the minute, her supervisor reviewed all the candidates in order to prepare her shortlist, disregarding those priorities, thus rendering the selection decision null and void. [The Tribunal considers that] what is important, however, is that the recruitment procedure in the Staff Regulations and the terms of the vacancy notice were complied with. The priorities for shortlisting candidates were merely indicated in a minute from HRD."

  Keywords:

  appointment; breach; candidate; competition; information note; internal candidate; priority; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions; supervisor; terms of appointment; vacancy; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2244

  
  95th Session, 2003
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 6-7

  Extract:

  Although "the complainants learnt from [a communiqué], addressed to all staff [...], that their appeal had been rejected [...] they were officially notified of the dismissal of their appeals only in [subsequent] letters [...], receipt of which they were asked to acknowledge. Contrary to the argument of the defendant, that was not a confirmation, but the first official notification of the decision to reject the internal appeals they had filed."

  Keywords:

  confirmatory decision; date of notification; general decision; individual decision; information note; internal appeal; receivability of the complaint; time bar;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 518

  
  49th Session, 1982
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations

  Extract:

  "The meaning of [the rule], on a literal construction and in the context of the Service Regulations, cannot be altered by reliance on material which does not embody rules, such as [the] document [in question], the sole purpose of which is to submit to the competent authorities of the [organisation] information on the [situation]".

  Keywords:

  binding character; information note; interpretation; provision; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 421

  
  45th Session, 1980
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  the tribunal concludes that an information note on the setting up of a working party did not become part of the contractual relationship between the organisation and the complainant. it is not therefore competent to consider allegations that the terms of the note were not observed. the note may have constituted an agreement between the director and the staff union, but that would not bring it within the competence of the tribunal.

  Keywords:

  binding character; competence of tribunal; contract; elements; information note; staff union agreement;