ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > apology

Judgment No. 4096

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

post description; harassment; retaliation; complaint dismissed

Consideration 8

Extract:

The Tribunal considers that the impugned decision was in favour of the complainant, since it confirmed the Regional Director’s order to initiate two procedures as requested by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant had to await the outcome of those procedures and, if not satisfied, he had to appeal internally, in accordance with the Organization’s rules, against the decisions which concluded those procedures. In light of the above, he did not have a cause of action to challenge the impugned decision.

Keywords

cause of action

Consideration 10

Extract:

The complainant requests that the Tribunal order the Administration to make a public apology. The Tribunal is not competent to make such an order (see, for example, Judgments 2742, consideration 44, and 3597, consideration 10).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 3597

Keywords

competence of tribunal; apology

Consideration 12

Extract:

The complainant’s requests for protective measures are beyond the Tribunal’s competence.

Keywords

competence of tribunal

Consideration 5

Extract:

As the written submissions are sufficient for the Tribunal to reach a reasoned decision, and the complaint hinges on a question of law, the Tribunal rejects the request for oral hearings.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 9

Extract:

The claims against the decisions concerning the abolition of the complainant’s post and his separation from service, which occurred [...] after the complainant had filed his appeal before the RBA [...], are irreceivable as they do not challenge final decisions within the meaning of Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Keywords

claim; final decision; receivability of application



 
Last updated: 13.10.2021 ^ top