Judgment No. 1773
The complaints are dismissed.
Considerations 5 and 6
"The [Organization] argues that the Tribunal is not competent to hear [the complaints]. In its submission [the] contract of employment [signed by the complainant] does not vest competence in the Tribunal but expressly provides for arbitration over any dispute. In the circumstances of the case the plea cannot succeed. The [Organization refused the complainant's] request for arbitration. Although there was no express provision vesting competence in the Tribunal to hear the dispute between the Organization and the complainant, it employed him, paid his salary and terminated his appointment. There is therefore no denying the Tribunal's competence by virtue of the general terms of Article II of its Statute. Such denial would mean either that no court at all had jurisdiction or that the case must go to the [national] courts, to whose jurisdiction the [Organization] declines to submit."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE TRIBUNAL'S STATUTE
competence of tribunal; arbitration; right of appeal; declaration of recognition; municipal court; iloat statute; contract