Judgment No. 3544
Decision
1. The Director-General’s decision of 13 December 2012 is set aside.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the practice followed in granting appointments without limit of time to officials in the Director and Principal Officer category.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; appointment; duration of appointment; permanent appointment
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Insofar as he [...] alleges a failure to respect the prerogatives of a body of which he himself was a member, the complainant has a cause of action which gives him standing to bring this complaint (see, for example, Judgment 2036, under 4, and Judgment 3053, as well as the analysis thereof in Judgment 3291, under 7)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2036, 3053, 3291
Keywords
cause of action; staff representative
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The ILO’s argument that, in the past, Staff Union representatives had never thought it necessary to challenge the practice in question and had apparently even implicitly acquiesced to it cannot negate the complainant’s right to rely on the cause of action thus recognised."
Keywords
cause of action; staff representative
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the Director-General’s decision [...] was confined to dismissing the complainant’s grievance as irreceivable, [...] the Tribunal considers that, since the parties have addressed the substance of the complainant’s claims, it should rule on the merits of the case."
Keywords
competence of tribunal
Consideration 14
Extract:
"[T]he ILO maintains that the disputed practice has been consistently applied for more than 15 years without demur from the Staff Union Committee until now – as has already been said – and without it giving rise to any objections from the officials concerned. However, as the Tribunal has consistently held, a practice cannot be become legally binding if it contravenes a written rule that is already in force (see, for example, Judgments 1390, under 27, 2259, under 8 and 9, 2411, under 9, 2959, under 7, or 3071, under 28). The inconsistency demonstrated above between the disputed practice and the provisions of Circular No. 452 is sufficient reason to dismiss that argument."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1390, 2259, 2411, 2959, 3071
Keywords
practice
|
