Judgment No. 1075
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Summary
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated by an agreement both parties reached under Article 11.16 of the Staff Regulations. He submits that the agreement is null and void because he signed it under duress. The Tribunal holds that the only pressure the ILO applied on him was the setting of a time limit (one day according to the complainant, two days according to the administration), but there was nothing improper in that.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 11.16 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
time limit; lack of consent
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant seeks the quashing of his appraisal report on the grounds that it had been drawn up during a period of conflict with his supervisors. However, the report was prepared jointly by three supervisors. "[S]uch joint participation obviated any danger there would have been in having a report drawn up by a supervisor with whom the complainant had had a clash of personality or other form of conflict".
Keywords
performance report; application for quashing; bias
Consideration 11
Extract:
People are often constrained to make decisions, whether on personal or on financial matters, under pressure of circumstances, but any contractual relations they may enter into while under such pressure will not be void or voidable on that account alone. To succeed in his contention that the agreement may not be enforced against him the complainant must show that the pressure under which he says he acted was unlawful.
Keywords
duress
| 
