Judgment No. 1509
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
The complainant was assigned to a joint service of the United Nations and UNIDO at Vienna. The service was under UNIDO management. But "it was the United Nations that offered him both the appointments which he had while he was at Vienna, and it was to the United Nations that he addressed his acceptance of each offer, thereby concluding a contract of employment with the UN. Indeed that is why he addressed his letter of resignation to the Secretary-General of the UN. True, he addressed it to the Director-General of UNIDO as well, but that was merely in recognition of UNIDO's supervision of his work and did not mean that the un had ceased to be his employer. In sum, he was an official, not of UNIDO, but of the UN."
complainant; organisation; contract; appointment; offer; resignation; acceptance; official
"Article II(5) empowers the Tribunal to hear a complaint which an official of an international organisation that has duly recognised its jurisdiction has filed and which alleges non-observance of either the terms of the official's appointment or the Staff Regulations. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 231 [...], those are 'two conditions which in practice coincide'. The reference to 'Staff Regulations' means those of the organisation of which a complainant is or was an official and does not include the Staff Regulations of any other."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II(5) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 231
locus standi; status of complainant; competence of tribunal; applicable law; case law; declaration of recognition; iloat statute; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; breach; contract; official
"The fact that UNIDO was administering the [joint UN and UNIDO service in which the complainant was working] made neither the complainant one of its officials nor the organization a party to the contract of employment. According to his letters of appointment the complainant was subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules of the United Nations, not of UNIDO. And even if in administering the service UNIDO did apply its own Staff Regulations to the complainant he did not on that account become a member of its staff. So any complaint by him that UNDO failed to apply, or misapplied, its Staff Regulations to him is not within the Tribunal's competence."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 11 OF THE STATUTE
locus standi; status of complainant; competence of tribunal; applicable law; iloat statute; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules; contract; official; non official
"The Tribunal's competence is determined by the provisions of its Statute. Neither the ruling by the Joint Appeals bBoard on its own competence nor the Director-General's endorsement or acquiescence can give the Tribunal jurisdiction which its Statute does not."
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OFTHE STATUTE
internal appeals body; competence; recommendation; competence of tribunal; iloat statute; executive head
When the complainant lodged a claim to reinstatement "he was neither a serving nor a former official of UNIDO, to which he was no more than an outside applicant for employment and whose decision was in fact a refusal to recruit him. That decision raises no question of non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official of UNIDO, or of its Staff Regulations. So again the Tribunal may not entertain the claim."
locus standi; complainant; status of complainant; competence of tribunal; staff regulations and rules; breach; contract; appointment; competition; candidate; reinstatement; refusal; external candidate; official