Judgment No. 1775
The complaint is dismissed.
"Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where [...] the actions of the Organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification."
complainant; evidence; burden of proof; lack of evidence; bias
"Staff Rule 1050.2, which [the complainant] relies on, states that [the reduction-in-force procedure] applies only to a post of indefinite duration'. The post held by the complainant [...] was designated as a 'project post'. As Manual paragraph II.9.260 makes plain, the reduction-in-force procedure does not apply to posts of 'limited duration', a category which specifically includes country project posts."
project personnel; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; post; fixed-term; permanent appointment; staff reduction; criteria
According to the complainant, the way he accepted the offer of employment did form a binding contract. The Tribunal considers that "[the complainant] must show an unqualified agreement and meeting of minds between the Organization and himself on the essential terms of a contract of employment. The Tribunal is unable to read [a telex from the complainant to the Organization] as anything but a counter-offer on one of the most essential terms of the proposed contract, namely remuneration. Certainly, it cannot be said to be an unqualified acceptance and the fact that it is couched in terms of a claim of right does nothing to change its character; a potential employee does not have an automatic right to any particular grade or step and an offer which specifies one figure of salary cannot be accepted by a claim to a higher figure: see Judgment 228 [...]."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 228
case law; grade; step; contract; offer; salary; acceptance; right
The complainant claims that a binding contract did exist between the Organization and himself, despite the silence of the Organization on his counter-offer regarding the amount of his salary. The Tribunal considers that "[it cannot] be said that the Organization's reply [...] constituted by its silence on that score an acceptance of the complainant's counter-offer. Silence does not normally imply consent and the circumstances here are not such as to give rise to any inference in the complainant's favour; the terms of the Organization's [reply] are fully compatible with the conclusion that the question of salary was still unresolved and subject to further negotiation."
failure to answer claim; contract; offer; salary; collective bargaining; acceptance