Judgment No. 3134
Decision
1. The impugned decision is set aside and the case is remitted to the UPU for it to take action as indicated under 9.
2. The UPU shall pay the complainant an indemnity of 3,000 Swiss francs by way of damages for moral injury.
3. It shall also pay him 2,000 francs in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; pension; transfer of pension rights
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint must be filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned. The defendant argues that the time limit appears not to have been observed and that the complaint is therefore time-barred. This objection is without foundation. According to the case law of the Tribunal (see, inter alia, Judgment 2863, under 3 ), the period of time for filing a complaint begins to run not from the day when the complainant was notified of the impugned decision, but from the following day.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2863
Keywords
date of filing
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he complainant has applied for a hearing, under Article 12 of the Rules, to confirm his version of the facts surrounding the decision to pay him a withdrawal settlement. However, having regard to the highly explicit character of the written submissions, and the information provided in the documents produced by the parties, the Tribunal considers that it is fully informed on this matter and that it is therefore unnecessary to allow the application.
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]t is not disputed that the Secretary of the Provident Scheme gave a positive oral response to the complainant's request and assured him that the transfer would be effected as soon as the agreement had been signed, and there is no doubt that in so doing the Secretary was acting in the exercise of his functions. The complainant could therefore assume in good faith that his rights would be transfered to the UNJSPF without his having to approach the Fund himself, in the manner provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement.
The Provident Scheme did not, however, effect the expected transfer, as the letter [...] from its Secretary shows, nor does that letter explain why it had omitted to do so. It follows that the UPU has been negligent in this regard. It is clear that there is a sufficient causal link between its negligence and the injury suffered by the complainant, the amount of which remains to be determined.
Keywords
injury; negligence; causal link
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he loss sustained by the complainant consists of the difference between the payments which the UNJSPF would have made to him when he reached retirement age, if the Provident Scheme had transferred his accumulated entitlements to the Fund, and the benefits which the Fund will actually pay to him at that time. This loss has to be compensated by means of an indemnity corresponding to the capitalised amount of the supplementary pension which the complainant may have secured with an independent provident institution [...].
Keywords
pension; material damages
| 
