Judgment No. 4780
Decision
The complaint is dismissed, as is ITU’s counterclaim for costs.
Summary
The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
internal appeal; former official; failure to exhaust internal remedies; review of administrative decision; complaint dismissed
Consideration 1
Extract:
In her brief, the complainant identifies the 12 February 2020 letter from the Chief, Human Resources Management Department (HRMD), as the impugned decision. […]
The Tribunal notes that, in the meantime, the Appeal Board considered the matter and, on 30 September 2020, the Administration took a final decision on the complainant’s appeal […]. In view of this final decision taken in the course of the proceedings, which has thus replaced the decision initially impugned before the Tribunal, the present complaint must be deemed to be directed against the 30 September 2020 decision.
Keywords
impugned decision
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is firmly established in the Tribunal’s case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; review of administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted
Consideration 7
Extract:
The fact that the Appeal Board considered that the appeal was partly receivable and went on to examine it on the merits, on the basis of a deliberate “flexible approach” to receivability, is immaterial.
As the Tribunal said in Judgment 2536, consideration 5:
“The complaint must therefore be found irreceivable insofar as it follows an internal appeal which was itself irreceivable. Contrary to the view put forward by the complainant, the fact that the Appeals Board examined not only the issue of lack of jurisdiction or irreceivability but also the merits of the case does not render the defendant’s objection to receivability inadmissible.”
(See also, for example, Judgments 3330, consideration 2, and 3311, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2536, 3311, 3330
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; internal remedies not exhausted
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he ITU consistently stated, including before the Appeal Board, that the complainant’s appeal was irreceivable for failure to address to the Secretary-General a request for reconsideration of the contested decision, as per the requirement in Staff Rule 11.1.2, and there is nothing on the file to indicate that the Secretary-General waived that requirement. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the ITU did not exempt the complainant from the requirement to submit a request for reconsideration in order to exhaust internal remedies.
Keywords
waiver of internal appeal procedure; internal remedies not exhausted
Consideration 8
Extract:
As the complainant did not address a request for reconsideration of the initial decision […], in accordance with Staff Rule 11.1.2, she has not exhausted internal remedies. Her complaint is therefore irreceivable, according to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute, and must be dismissed.
Keywords
internal procedure; review of administrative decision; internal remedies not exhausted
Consideration 9
Extract:
With regard to the [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs, the Tribunal considers that, although the complaint was obviously misconceived and the language used by the complainant in her submissions to the Tribunal is highly inappropriate, the [organisation] has not sufficiently established that the complaint is vexatious or frivolous (see, for example, Judgments 4726, consideration 14, and 3672, consideration 6). The [organisation]’s counterclaim for costs will be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3672, 4726
Keywords
vexatious complaint; costs; counterclaim; frivolous complaint
| 
