Judgment No. 4750
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment for unauthorised absence and abandonment of post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
termination of employment; abandonment of post; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s established case law, there can be no question of abandonment of post unless the staff member shows her or his intention not to return (see Judgments 4243, consideration 18, 3853, consideration 21, 1834, consideration 7, and 392, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 392, 1834, 3853, 4243
Keywords
abandonment of post
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that although the complainant did submit a medical certificate dated 27 August 2020 [...], she did not provide a medical certificate stating that the restriction on air travel was still valid in April 2021, even though she was explicitly requested to do so. The Tribunal notes in particular that the medical certificate of 26 February 2021 did not confirm that it would be impossible for the complainant to fly back to her duty station in The Hague on 31 March 2021.
In a similar case in that regard, the Tribunal found that “[a complainant’s] refusal, without persuasive justification, to submit the requested [medical] information [...] [was] ample indication of her intent to abandon her post” (see Judgment 1834, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1834
Keywords
abandonment of post
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that the complainant has clearly expressed her intention not to return to The Hague, despite the various requests that she do so. Indeed, in an email of 29 March 2021, the complainant put her position in the following terms: “[...] After much thoughts, I choose not to return to The Hague on 1st April 2021”.
Keywords
abandonment of post
Consideration 9
Extract:
Although, as she observes, the complainant was [...] entitled to request special leave without pay, she did not have an automatic right to receive it; it was to be granted at the discretion of the Registrar of the Court. Given an international organisation’s discretionary authority to take such a decision, it is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of law or of fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgment 4101, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101
Keywords
special leave; judicial review; discretion
|
