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

Judgment No. 4530

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the effective date of termination of his appointment, which had previously been deferred on a number of occasions due to his sick leave.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

extension of contract; termination of employment; sick leave; complaint dismissed

Consideration 3

Extract:

[T]he complainant requested oral proceedings. The request is rejected as the documents and the parties’ submissions sufficiently inform the Tribunal of the case (which essentially turns on the discrete issue concerning the effective date of termination of the complainant’s appointment) to permit it to make an informed decision.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 3

Extract:

The complainant seeks the disclosure of “any and all documents, reports, correspondence, e-mails, notes, records, memoranda, letters, notices, file contents, minutes, minuted phone calls, or any other documents or items in the possession of the Administration that in any way describes, comments on, relates or refers to, controls, records, and/or evidences, in general or specifically, the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment, in particular medical records or reports indicating that the [c]omplainant was fit to return to work at the time of his termination, as well as the medical assessment made by the WHO Staff Physician purportedly relied upon by the GBA in its report (with which assessment to date the [c]omplainant has never been provided)”. The request is rejected as it is cast in such wide and general terms that it constitutes an impermissible “fishing expedition” (see, for example, Judgments 4247, consideration 3, and 4086, consideration 9).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4086, 4247

Keywords

disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition

Consideration 7

Extract:

As the Tribunal reiterated in consideration 3 of Judgment 3058, it is well established that the same question cannot be the subject of more than one proceeding between the same parties.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3058

Keywords

parallel proceedings



 
Last updated: 27.09.2022 ^ top