Judgment No. 4357
The complaints are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
selection procedure; complaint dismissed
The complainant bears the burden of establishing retaliation (see Judgment 4261, consideration 10) [...].
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261
burden of proof; retaliation
[T]he complainant’s pleas in relation to the production of documents are of substance. It is sufficient to refer only to the request of the complainant in his statement of appeal dated 12 December 2016. Quite explicitly he sought, inter alia, the selection reports for vacancy announcements [...]. In its report [...] the Appeals Board explained why it rejected this request. It said that “[n]one of the confidential selection report constitutes an essential document upon which the Impugned Decision not to shortlist the [complainant] for the position was based”. It also characterised other aspects of the request for the production of documents as a fishing expedition. This approach is plainly at odds with the Tribunal’s case law. What the complainant was seeking was evidence to which he was entitled, even if in a redacted form (see Judgment 4293, consideration 4, citing Judgment 4023, consideration 5). While these reports, as completed, are entirely unsupportive of one of his central arguments in these proceedings (who did the shortlisting), they could have been to the opposite effect. Moreover if they had been provided, the complainant may have abandoned this argument and concentrated on others. The Tribunal notes that these reports have been provided in these proceedings as a result of a request of the Tribunal. However, the complainant, who makes a clear distinction in the complaint form and in his submissions between moral and punitive damages, does not seek moral damages for that failure. This breach does not warrant, as sought by the complainant, an award of punitive damages.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023, 4293
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition
Both proceedings could have been discontinued after the complainant became aware of his success and the reasons for it in his third complaint founding Judgment 3908. The complainant ought to have appreciated that a right to bring proceedings in the Tribunal is not a license to litigate on any topic raising any conceivable argument and to do so repeatedly. It unreasonably taxes the resources of the defendant organization and also the resources of the Tribunal. It is tantamount to an abuse of process that needs to be deprecated in the strongest terms.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
vexatious complaint; abuse of process