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

ILO Instruments (685,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: ILO Instruments
Total judgments found: 2

  • Judgment 3726


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has explained its purview when a party relies on the violation of a right under an ILO Convention as follows:
    “The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. [...] [T]hese instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12).” (Judgment 3448, consideration 10.)
    However, the prohibition on forced labour is not confined to the Forced Labour Convention. It is also one of the fundamental principles and rights at work, as recognized in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, 1998, which is accepted by all ILO Member States through their membership of the ILO. The Tribunal already considered in Judgment 1333, consideration 5, that:
    “The law that the Tribunal applies in entertaining claims that are put to it includes not just the written rules of the defendant organisation but the general principles of law and basic human rights.”
    Accordingly, the complainant’s claim for compensation on the ground that she was subjected to compulsory labour and labour exploitation will be considered.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1333, 2662, 3448

    Keywords:

    applicable law; forced labour; ilo instruments;



  • Judgment 3448


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint because the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is discretionary.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The complainant contends that the ILO acted in breach of its own international instruments when it did not renew his contract. He specifically refers to ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 3.2(c) of ILO Recommendation No. 166. He submits that these provide authority for the proposition that when a contract for a specified period is renewed on one or more occasions it is deemed to be a contract of employment of indeterminate duration. There is no merit in this submission as this statement is not applicable to a person who is employed on the type of contract on which the complainant was employed. In the second place, these instruments create obligations for Member States and do not apply to the relationships between the ILO and its officials. These latter relationships are governed by the terms of the contracts into which the person entered with the ILO and by the rules and regulations of the ILO, as interpreted and applied by the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgment 2662, under 12). This aspect of the complaint is unfounded as these do not create for the complainant a contract of indeterminate duration.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2662

    Keywords:

    ilo instruments;


 
Last updated: 14.07.2020 ^ top