Judgment No. 4782
Decision
The application for review is dismissed.
Summary
The complainants filed an application review of Judgment 4484.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4484
Keywords
application for review; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
Regarding the principles which govern an application for the review of a judgment, the Tribunal case law states that, pursuant to Article VI of its Statute, the Tribunal’s judgments are “final and without appeal” and have res judicata authority. They may therefore be reviewed only in exceptional circumstances and on strictly limited grounds. The only admissible grounds for review are failure to take account of material facts, a material error involving no exercise of judgement, an omission to rule on a claim, or the discovery of new facts which the complainant was unable to rely on in the original proceedings. Moreover, these pleas must be likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Pleas of a mistake of law, failure to admit evidence, misinterpretation of the facts or omission to rule on a plea, on the other hand, afford no grounds for review (see, for example, Judgment 4736, consideration 4, and the judgments cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4736
Keywords
inadmissible grounds for review; grounds
Consideration 5
Extract:
On the material available to the Tribunal in [the] complaints, it was not established that the complainants worked on shifts outside working hours. They cannot now do so in their application for review, as it travels beyond the scope of review as discussed in consideration 3 […].
Keywords
evidence
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalled its statements in Judgment 2972 that payment should be made “to each complainant for so long as he works shifts outside normal working hours” and that it was clear from its terms that Judgment 2972 was not based on acquired rights or the working of night shifts, but on the Organisation’s “duty of care to ensure that the new arrangements did not cause financial hardship to [the complainants]”.
The foregoing analysis confirms that the rationale for the Tribunal’s determination, in consideration 8 of Judgment 4484, that its decision that the complainants’ claims were unfounded did not depend upon whether or not the complainants continued to work or were still engaged in performing shift work. This therefore had no substantial bearing on the decision to dismiss their complaints. Rather, as the Tribunal explained, it was satisfied that the Appeals Committee had correctly considered that the deductions the Office made from the complainants’ compensatory allowances in respect of their career progression were permissible and lawful because the adverse financial effects that the reorganisation had had on their incomes in 2005 had been mitigated after some ten years during which the EPO had slightly reduced the compensatory allowance, while maintaining the complainants’ income at a stable level. The EPO had thereby over that period of time discharged the duty of care it owed to the complainants.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2972, 4484
Keywords
duty of care
|
