Judgment No. 2098
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
The complainant denies having signed an agreement for the termination of his appointment. He asked for a signed copy of the agreement but the organization cannot provide it. "The facts show beyond all doubt that the complainant accepted the [organization]'s offer. His attitude [is] tantamount to an admission that he did agree to the termination of his appointment. This is further borne out by the fact that he raised no objection when the agreement was implemented. The concurrence and reciprocity between the parties would in itself constitute sufficient evidence that a contract existed even in the absence of proof of a written agreement."
complainant; evidence; lack of evidence; enforcement; contract; offer; intention of parties; agreed termination; acceptance; request by a party
The complainant's appointment was terminated by mutual agreement. He appears to object that the organization terminated his employment while he was on sick leave. "Although the Tribunal held in Judgment 938 [...] that a staff member cannot be separated while on sick leave, it later pointed out that its ruling was to be seen in context and could not be applied in any circumstances whatever (see Judgment 1494 [...], under 6). The rule being intended to protect the staff member, it cannot be applied where the termination is the subject of an agreement, particularly when it has been mooted by the staff member concerned".
ILOAT Judgment(s): 938, 1494
exception; iloat; case law; contract; separation from service; agreed termination; sick leave; limits; condition