Judgment No. 4693
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General dismissing as irreceivable his internal appeal against an “implied decision” by the Organization not to provide him with any Terms of Reference or work from 10 September 2016 until 31 December 2018, when he separated from service upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
implied decision; complaint dismissed
Consideration 8
Extract:
In the usual case, the following reflects the case law concerning an implied decision. In Judgment 3089, consideration 7, the Tribunal said:
“An implied decision occurs only when a person who has submitted a claim is entitled to treat delay, inactivity, or some other failure, as constituting a decision to reject his or her claim and elects to do so.”
The concept of a claim involves the assertion of an unsatisfied right to a benefit or entitlement under the terms of appointment or the staff rules and regulations and its rejection entails the refusal to pay the benefit or grant the entitlement either in whole or in part. As this passage says, the refusal may arise by implication based on delay, inactivity or other failure. The Tribunal has accepted that a member of staff has a right to be provided with work (see Judgments 3937, 2360 and 630). In Judgment 3377, consideration 13, this was found to be harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 630, 2360, 3089, 3377, 3937
Keywords
implied decision
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the Organization rightly points out, a person cannot simultaneously submit the same matter for decision in more than one proceeding, citing Judgment 3291, consideration 6.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291
Keywords
parallel proceedings
|
