Judgment No. 4141
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision of the CTA to reject his proposal to negotiate an agreed termination of his employment contract.
receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed
The CTA, which withdrew its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by a decision of its Executive Board of 23 March 2018 that was notified to the Director-General of the ILO by a letter of the same date, submits that the Tribunal is therefore not competent to rule on the present complaint. According to the CTA, which had at the same time provided that disputes between itself and its staff members would henceforth be resolved by a new tribunal established at the CTA, its withdrawal from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction took immediate effect and therefore precludes the Tribunal from considering the aforementioned complaint, registered on 13 August 2018, since it was filed subsequent to the withdrawal.
However, as under Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal the recognition by an international organization of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the ILO, the principle of parallelism of form requires that the withdrawal of recognition of jurisdiction should also be subject, before taking effect, to a discussion by the same body. As the Tribunal has previously found, it can only be bound, when an organization decides to withdraw from its jurisdiction, when it has been notified of the ILO Governing Body’s deliberations taking note of such a decision (see Judgment 1043, consideration 3).
In the present case, it was only on 30 October 2018 that the ILO Governing Body considered the withdrawal by the CTA of its recognition of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1043
receivability of the complaint; competence of tribunal; ratione temporis
[T]he complainant [...] contends [...] that the new administrative tribunal established at the CTA does not, for various reasons, provide the requisite guarantees of independence and impartiality. However, not only is the Tribunal, which is not competent to comment on the qualities and merits of another international tribunal, obviously not able to give credit to such criticisms, but the pleas invoked would not in any case be of such a nature as to allow it to disregard the aforementioned statutory provisions requiring recourse to the conciliation procedure before filing a complaint with the Tribunal. It should further be noted that this plea wrongly disregards the very purpose of this procedure, which is to enable the complainant to resolve the dispute with the CTA by an agreement. Lastly, the fact, also pointed out by the complainant, that the CTA’s new administrative tribunal was not established at the time the present complaint was filed has no bearing on its receivability.
receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted