ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By session > 36th Session

Judgment No. 272

Decision

1. For the purpose of establishing entitlements under the Staff Regulations and Rules in accordance with Staff Rule 360, the place of residence of the complainant shall, notwithstanding the contents of WHO Form 386 signed by her in June 1972, be determined as having been at Lima in Peru.
2. The cases of the interveners Mrs. Rodriguez, Miss Ordoņez, Mrs. Gandolfo, Mrs. Conrad, Mrs. Blaise, Miss Argote, Miss Rodriguez, Miss Alcalde, Mrs. Biknevicius and Miss McCallum shall be remitted to the Director-General for the purpose set out in paragraph 8 of the considerations above.
3. The defendant Organization shall pay the sum of 1,000 dollars as costs.

Consideration 1

Extract:

"[T]he authority given to the Tribunal by Article II of its Statute is limited to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of the Staff Regulations. The authority does not extend to the giving of advisory rulings nor to resolving differences in which there is no question of a breach of the terms of appointment or of the Staff Regulations."

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II OF THE STATUTE

Keywords

competence of tribunal; iloat statute; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; provision; contract

Consideration 8

Extract:

The interveners have not provided a clear and positive statement of their residence at the time of recruitment. "[T]he cases of the interveners should be remitted to the Director-General so that, in the light of this judgment [...] he may amend the [...] form [...] so as to show in each case the correct and agreed residence immediately prior to appointment with liberty to each intervener to apply to the Tribunal if agreement is not reached."

Keywords

intervention; case sent back to organisation; appointment; residence

Consideration 9

Extract:

"Since the cases of the interveners are to be remitted to the Director-General because of the insufficiency of the evidence that is supplied with them the Tribunal can award no costs in respect of them."

Keywords

intervention; costs; no award of costs; case sent back to organisation; lack of evidence; local status; non-local status; elements

Consideration 7

Extract:

The complainant is entitled to have it declared that she was at the time of her appointment resident at Lima. "But the Tribunal will not decide that she was entitled to 'attendant benefits' [...] This is a question which may be answered differently in the case of different benefits under different rules; the answer may be dependent also upon the relevant facts and circumstances at the time when the benefit becomes due. If and when an allegation is made that any particular benefit has been wrongfully withheld, the Tribunal will decide it upon the facts then presented.

Reference(s)

Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF RULE 360

Keywords

case sent back to organisation; appointment; non-local status; residence; consequence

Consideration 2

Extract:

The complainant invites the Tribunal to rule that she was "internationally recruited" and therefore subject to the benefits provided for by the applicable provisions. The term does not appear in any of the provisions cited; no definition of the term is to be found in the dossier. "The Tribunal takes it to mean that staff whose nationality and/or residence at the time of recruitment was not that of the country in which the duty station for which they were recruited is situated."

Keywords

nationality; no provision; duty station; appointment; non-local status; residence; definition

Consideration 1

Extract:

The request which the complainant addressed to the organization was never either accepted or rejected. She then filed a complaint with the Tribunal and "based it on the silence of the organization and on Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal's Statute. The organization does not dispute that the complaint falls within Article VII and accordingly, so far as that article is concerned, the complaint is receivable."

Reference(s)

ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE STATUTE

Keywords

complaint; implied decision; failure to answer claim; receivability of the complaint; direct appeal to tribunal



 
Last updated: 03.04.2020 ^ top