Judgment No. 3738
1. The impugned decision of 24 March 2014 is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the ITU for a new decision on the merits of the claim for a termination indemnity and compensation for moral injury submitted by the complainant on 18 February 2014 within 30 days from the public delivery of this judgment.
3. The ITU shall pay the complainant 3,000 euros in moral damages.
4. It shall also pay him 2,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant impugns the decision to reject his claim for a termination indemnity.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; terminal entitlements
The author of a complaint is of course free to decide what claims she or he wishes to file with the Tribunal. It is those claims – unless they are amended or counterclaims are filed – that determine the scope of the dispute. Where, as is the case here, they are clearly identified, their terms bind not only the other party but also the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 630, under 2 and 3).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 630
[I]nsofar as the version of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that was in force at the material time did not provide former staff members with internal means of redress, the complainant, who was no longer in the ITU’s employ at the time when the decision […] was taken, is entitled to challenge that decision directly before the Tribunal (see Judgments 2892, under 6 to 8, 3139, under 3, or 3178, under 5).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2892, 3139, 3178
direct appeal to tribunal
[A]ccording to firm precedent, it is for the sender of a document to prove its date of receipt by the recipient in the event of a dispute on this matter (see, for example, Judgments 456, under 7, 723, under 4, 2473, under 4, 2494, under 4, 3034, under 13, and 3253, under 7).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 456, 723, 2473, 2494, 3034, 3253
burden of proof; notification
[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, bad faith cannot be presumed and hence will not be established unless evidence thereof is provided (see, for example, Judgments 2282, under 6, 2293, under 11, 2800, under 21, or 3407, under 15).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2282, 2293, 2800, 3407
[T]he impugned decision of 24 March 2014 wrongly rejected the claim for retrospective payment of a termination indemnity and compensation for moral injury submitted by the complainant on 18 February 2014 on the grounds that it was time-barred, whereas the Secretary-General should have considered its substance. Accordingly, that decision must be set aside and the case remitted to the ITU for a new decision on the merits of the claim to be taken within 30 days from the public delivery of this judgment.
case sent back to organisation