ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > post

Judgment No. 581



Consideration 3


The complainant's services were terminated and his post abolished. The Organization contends that the fact that the complainant accepted the indemnity provided for in the Rules constitutes a contractual agreement which precludes him from pursuing subsequent claims. "The Tribunal will, naturally, examine the circumstances in which the payment was made and accepted in considering whether or not the complainant has renounced any claim he may have had against the Organisation in connection with the termination of his services. In the circumstances of this case the Tribunal has concluded that the mere acceptance by the complainant of the said indemnity does not amount to a renunciation by him of his claim against the PAHO and is not a bar to his seeking relief."


waiver of right of appeal; terminal entitlements; abolition of post; termination of employment; agreed termination; acceptance

Consideration 6


"In [Judgment 470] the Tribunal considered the applicability of [a rule] to a staff member whose fixed-term appointment had been regularly extended and held that [the rule] applied in such a case. [...] In the instant case, [as in P.] the complainant was the holder of a post of indefinite duration. The Tribunal sees no reason to differ from the conclusion reached in [case P.] or the reasoning on which that conclusion was based." The Article applies in the instant case.


Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1050.2 PAHO STAFF RULES
ILOAT Judgment(s): 470


applicable law; contract; post; fixed-term; permanent appointment; abolition of post; termination of employment

Consideration 9


"It is not for the Tribunal to question the decision of the [organisation's] Executive Committee that there should be a reduction in force because of budgetary considerations. This is not the function of the Tribunal." It is competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment or provisions of Staff Regulations. "There being no suggestion that the reduction in force was merely a device to effect the unjustifiable removal of the complainant, the Tribunal will not, therefore, review the correctness of the [...] decision to reduce the staff".


abolition of post; budgetary reasons; staff reduction; judicial review

Last updated: 31.03.2020 ^ top