Judgment No. 1256
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant asked the Director-General to review his decision to reject his application for a vacant post after the expiry of the one month delay for filing of an internal appeal. He wants the Tribunal to acknowledge the exceptional character of his case as justifying an extension of the normally applicable time limit. "According to precedent a complainant may not be deemed to have exhausted the means of redress at his disposal within the organisation unless he has followed the prescribed internal procedure for appeal and in particular observed the time limits. So if his internal appeal was out of time his complaint to this Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII(1)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII(1) OF THE STATUTE
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords
complaint; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; exception; time bar; case law; iloat statute; staff regulations and rules
Consideration 6
Extract:
To escape the time bar the complainant relies on UPU Staff Rule 111.3.4, which allows the Joint Appeals Committee to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances. "As the Union observes, the time limit which the Committee may waive is not the one in 111.3.1 - the one month for submitting a request for review to the Director-General - but only the one for appeal to the Committee against the decision rejecting such request." The complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: UPU STAFF RULE 111.3
Keywords
complaint; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time limit; exception; time bar; case law; iloat statute; staff regulations and rules
| 
