Judgment No. 4758
Decision
The complaints are dismissed, as is the OACPS’s counterclaim.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision of the Secretary-General to end her employment and the breach of a promise of employment allegedly made to her.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
time bar; promise; late filing; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that the issue of receivability of a complaint can be raised by the Tribunal of its own motion, even if it has not been raised by the Organisation, when irreceivability is clearly apparent from the evidence submitted (see Judgment 3648, consideration 5; see also, to the same effect, Judgments 3139, consideration 3, 2567, consideration 6, 1095, consideration 18, and 60, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 60, 1095, 2567, 3139, 3648
Keywords
receivability of the complaint
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal, “[t]o be receivable, a complaint must [...] have been filed within ninety days after the complainant was notified of the decision impugned”.
The Tribunal notes that the impugned decision of 14 June 2021 rejected an internal complaint lodged by the complainant even though she had not been a member of the Organisation’s staff since 27 December 2020 and therefore no longer had access to the means of internal redress (see Judgment 4582, consideration 4). Given that the complaint against that decision was dated 15 June 2022, it was not filed with the Tribunal within the period prescribed therefor.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4582
Keywords
time bar; late filing
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that, at the time she filed her complaint with the Tribunal, she was still awaiting the outcome of the promise the Organisation had made to reappoint her and this was the reason why she did not file the complaint sooner.
However, in view of the Tribunal’s relevant case law (see, in particular, Judgments 4665, consideration 6, 4253, consideration 6, 3619, considerations 14 and 15, and 3148, consideration 7) and the evidence on file, there is nothing to indicate that, in the present case, a formal promise was made to the complainant by the Organisation to reappoint her at a later date.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3148, 3619, 4253, 4665
Keywords
promise
Consideration 11
Extract:
[P]ursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 7B of the Rules of the Tribunal, only a complainant or intervener may request anonymity, since they are the only parties whose names are referred to in the Tribunal’s judgments.
In addition, in view of its special nature and its specific Statute, the Tribunal is not, in any event, bound by the provisions of EU law, such as those contained in the GDPR (see Judgments 4493, consideration 10, 4167, consideration 7, and 3867, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3867, 4167, 4493
Keywords
applicable law; european union; anonymity
|
