ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 120th Session

Judgment No. 3544

Decision

1. The Director-Generalís decision of 13 December 2012 is set aside.
2. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

appointment; duration of appointment; permanent

Consideration 4

Extract:

"Insofar as he [...] alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has a cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2036, 3053, 3291

Keywords

cause of action; staff representative

Consideration 5

Extract:

"The ILOís argument that, in the past, Staff Union representatives had never thought it necessary to challenge the practice in question and had apparently even implicitly acquiesced to it cannot negate the complainantís right to rely on the cause of action thus recognised."

Keywords

cause of action; staff representative

Consideration 7

Extract:

"Although the Director-Generalís decision [...] was confined to dismissing the complainantís grievance as irreceivable, [...] the Tribunal considers that, since the parties have addressed the substance of the complainantís claims, it should rule on the merits of the case."

Keywords

competence of tribunal

Consideration 14

Extract:

"[T]he ILO maintains that the disputed practice has been consistently applied for more than 15 years without demur from the Staff Union Committee until now Ė as has already been said Ė and without it giving rise to any objections from the officials concerned. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a practice cannot be become legally binding if it contravenes a written rule that is already in force (see, for example, Judgments 1390, under 27, 2259, under 8 and 9, 2411, under 9, 2959, under 7, or 3071, under 28). The inconsistency demonstrated above between the disputed practice and the provisions of Circular No. 452 is sufficient reason to dismiss that argument."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 1390, 2259, 2411, 2959, 3071

Keywords

practice



 
Last updated: 28.02.2017 ^ top