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

New plea (92,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: New plea
Total judgments found: 32

1, 2 | next >

  • Judgment 4240


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant makes it clear that she is not relying upon statements concerning harassment to assert that the decision to reassign her ďwas driven by the claimed harassment of [the DXD/MER] but rather that it occurred as a result of [the DXD/MERís] malice, ill-will and prejudice against [her]Ē and that any statements brought into the present proceedings touching allegations of harassment are merely to support her plea that her reassignment was occasioned by these alleged improper motives on the part of the DXD/MER. She is not precluded from relying on statements touching on the alleged harassment to support her plea in these proceedings that she was reassigned as a result of the alleged improper motives (see, for example, Judgment 4149, consideration 7).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4149

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4066


    127th Session, 2019
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The FAO raises receivability as a threshold issue submitting that the complainant did not raise in her internal appeal some of the issues which she raises in her complaint. However, the Tribunal finds that the FAO has not distinguished between new pleas, which the complainant may rely on to support her claims, and new claims, which would be irreceivable as they extend the scope of the claims submitted during the internal appeal process (see Judgment 4009, under 10, and the judgments cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4009

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4009


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.

    Considerations 10-14

    Extract:

    As the defendant organisation notes, the complainantís ďrequestĒ to have his fixed-term contract redefined was not submitted to the Advisory Board. It is true that in his internal appeal the complainant asked only to have his fixed-term contract extended for one year. The Tribunalís case law clearly establishes that a complainantís claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas, as the present complainant does, before the Tribunal even if these pleas were not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5). [...]
    As stated in consideration 10, above, the Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 4008


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    The Tribunal considers that a complainant may advance a new plea before the Tribunal, even if it was not placed before the internal appeal body (see Judgments 3686, under 22, and 2571, under 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571, 3686

    Keywords:

    new plea;



  • Judgment 4002


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision dismissing as clearly irreceivable his grievance complaint against several members of the Staff Council.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    In his complaint, the complainant maintains that he was subjected to harassment, retaliation, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power, defamation, and a violation of human rights. He submits that the Staff Councilís members unfounded allegations against him; barring him from performing his duty as a member of the Staff Council; and publishing of a defamatory document about him constitute improper conduct and created a hostile working environment. It must be observed that [...] the only grievances that have been subject to internal review are those of retaliation and defamation. It follows that the allegations of harassment, intimidation, discrimination and unequal treatment, abuse of power and violation of human rights are beyond the scope of this complaint and will not be considered. As to the allegations of retaliation and defamation, [...] the complainant does not dispute that the acts allegedly constituting retaliation and defamation were taken in the context of Staff Council activities.

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3967


    125th Session, 2018
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant considers that he was a victim of harassment, or at least of straining, by his director who issued a warning letter regarding his performance and set new productivity targets which he was to achieve in 2004.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    As the complainant did not put forward the claim for material damages mentioned in the foregoing consideration in his internal appeal, it is irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunalís Statute. It will be dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exhaust internal remedies in relation to that claim.
    Likewise, the claim for the breach of the duty of care is also irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunalís Statute. It is outside the scope of the internal appeal as it was raised for the first time by the complainant in the present complaint. The complainant did not claim in the internal appeal that his director, or by extension the EPO, breached the duty of care towards him. However, the majority of the IAC, having considered that the directorís actions did not constitute an offence to the complainantís dignity amounting to harassment, concluded that the actions complained of amounted to a breach of the directorís duty of care towards the complainant. This finding clearly went beyond the scope of the internal appeal and was not addressed in the impugned decision.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3945


    125th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges her 2013 performance evaluation.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 2837, under 3, and 3420, under 10, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal will consider any additional plea the complainant has made that may be relevant only to support her claims concerning her 2013 performance evaluation, which is the only receivable aspect of the present complaint.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3420

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3921


    125th Session, 2018
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    While a complainant can add to her or his pleas in a rejoinder (but not add additional claims: see, for example, Judgment 2965, consideration 11), she or he runs the risk, as illustrated by this case, that a detailed and persuasive answer by a defendant organisation emerges in the surrejoinder to which no response is provided by the complainant beyond what had earlier been said in the rejoinder.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2965

    Keywords:

    new plea; rejoinder;



  • Judgment 3688


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her post and to separate her from service.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    WHO contends that [the complainant's] allegations of prejudice and bias, retaliation and malice in the present complaint are irreceivable. However, the Tribunal holds that those allegations are not claims, but pleas to support her argument that these were some of the factors which influenced the abolition of her post and separation (see, for example, Judgments 2837, consideration 3, and 3617, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837, 3617

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3686


    122nd Session, 2016
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-Generalís final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.

    Consideration 22

    Extract:

    [T]he case law is clear that a complainantís claims must not exceed in scope the claims submitted during the internal appeal process. However, a complainant is not precluded from advancing new pleas before the Tribunal even if those
    pleas were not placed before the relevant internal appeal body (see Judgment 2571, consideration 5).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2571

    Keywords:

    new plea;



  • Judgment 3654


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain on his personal file a disputed performance appraisal report issued after the expiry of his temporary appointment, and the decision to reject his application for inclusion on a roster of candidates eligible for temporary contracts.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The FAO submits that [the complainant's claim] is irreceivable as it was raised for the first time in the present complaint. The Tribunal observes that this was not raised as an independent claim in the internal appeal, but that the complainant mentioned the fact that he received the PAR appraisal two months after the end of his appointment and referred to the applicable case law. To this extent it amounts to a plea to support his case, rather than a claim, and is accordingly receivable.

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3422


    119th Session, 2015
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    In its surrejoinder, the Global Fund raises a plea that his claim for underpayment should have been, but was not, raised in the internal appeal. However, this plea should have been raised by the Global Fund in its reply. It was not and is not a plea to which the complainant has had an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, it is disregarded.

    Keywords:

    new plea; surrejoinder;



  • Judgment 3420


    119th Session, 2015
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision not to convert his consultant's contract into a fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    "Precedent has it that a complainant may enlarge on the arguments presented before internal appeal bodies, but may not submit new claims to the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgment 2837, under 3, and the case law cited therein)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2837

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 3389


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application for review on the grounds that no new argument was raised by the complainant.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "The grounds for the complainantís application for review essentially repeat the arguments he submitted in his previous complaints, which were fully considered by the Tribunal prior to the taking of its decisions and the publication of its judgments [...]. No new argument has been raised. The application for review is therefore devoid of merit [...]."

    Keywords:

    inadmissible grounds for review; new plea;



  • Judgment 3160


    114th Session, 2013
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the Director-General's decision to reject his appeal concerning breaches of confidentiality.

    Consideration 14

    Extract:

    "There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which an organisation has not been permitted to maintain an argument concerning the receivability of a complaint that was not raised in the internal appeal preceding the complaint to the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 2255, considerations 12 to 14). The principle that the failure to raise the issue of receivability in an internal appeal precludes the argument being raised before the Tribunal exists to further the interests of justice."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2255

    Keywords:

    estoppel; internal appeal; new plea; receivability of the complaint; reply;



  • Judgment 2891


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Following her reassignment, which in Judgment 2659 the Tribunal considered as a hidden disciplinary sanction, the complainant applied for her previous post. Her application was however not considered on the grounds that under Administrative Instruction No. 16 only applications from staff members who had serve in one position for a minimum of one year would be receivable. The complainant challenged the decision not to consider her application, arguing that it constituted discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal found in her favour and awarded her the compensation she had claimed.
    "While this case stems from the previous complaint, the two cases are separate and distinct, being based on different facts and different administrative decisions. Each unlawful decision must have its own remedy. Therefore, the Organization's assertion that the damages already paid to the complainant must be taken into account in the calculation of damages in the present case is incorrect."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2659

    Keywords:

    complaint; damages; difference; new claim; new plea;



  • Judgment 2837


    107th Session, 2009
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "[A]rguments raised before internal appeals bodies can be developed in a complaint before the Tribunal, but the complaint cannot include new claims (see, in particular, Judgments 429, under 1, 452, under 1, and 1380, under 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 429, 452, 1380

    Keywords:

    new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 2645


    103rd Session, 2007
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant, in her appeal to the Director-General, the rejection of which prompted her to submit the matter to the Appeals Committee, merely requested that the disciplinary measure of suspension be revoked and that she be reinstated in the Organization. In her appeal she asked the Committee to rule that the penalties imposed on her were unlawful. It would therefore appear that during the internal proceedings she filed no specific claim for damages for an injury due to the sexual harassment she claimed to have suffered, although she dwelt at length on her allegations of sexual harassment and attributes the reprisals by her supervisor to her having reported them.
    The Tribunal therefore considers that any claim for damages for the injury that the complainant allegedly suffered as a result of sexual harassment constitutes an extension of the scope of the claims filed during the internal appeal proceedings and is therefore irreceivable pursuant to Article VII(1) of the Tribunalís Statute inasmuch as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress (see, inter alia, Judgement 1380, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380

    Keywords:

    moral injury; new plea; sexual harassment;



  • Judgment 2417


    98th Session, 2005
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The Appeals Committee accepted that the whole of the complainant's appeal was receivable. The essence of his grievance was contained in his original appeal and his reply was simply an expansion on the relief requested but did not raise a new ground of appeal. That finding was correct and the Tribunal endorses it." (see Judgment 2416, under 11)

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2416

    Keywords:

    claim; compensation; internal appeal; internal appeals body; new claim; new plea; receivability of the complaint; report;



  • Judgment 2255


    95th Session, 2003
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 12-13

    Extract:

    "The organization did not contest the receivability of the appeals to the appeals board and does not now contest that the complaints were timely filed in accordance with the Tribunal's Statute. Notwithstanding these facts, however, UNESCO now argues that the internal appeals to the Appeals Board were irreceivable and that accordingly, the complaints to the Tribunal are also irreceivable. [...] In Judgment 522, the Tribunal was faced with the identical situation and held: "There can be no doubt that the appropriate, if not the only, time to take the point was before the Appeals Board, since it is the proceedings before the Board that are said to be out of time [...] and not the proceedings before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal has therefore now to consider whether or not justice requires that the organization should be given a second opportunity to take the point. Three factors ought to be considered. The first is whether the point is a clear and compelling one. The second is whether there is an adequate explanation of the organization's failure to take it. The third is whether the complainant may be prejudiced by the organizations's failure.' " The Tribunal applies, in the present case, the criteria set out in Judgment 552.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 522

    Keywords:

    case law; complaint; date; injury; internal appeal; new plea; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; time limit;

1, 2 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.10.2020 ^ top