Judgment No. 4088
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
general service category; professional category; reassignment; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
The IAEA contends that the claims which the complainant raises concerning the under-classification of his P-2 post and his request for an order that a compensation scheme be created and that he be awarded compensation for his involvement in an IT Extended Schedule are also irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute. However, the creation of such a scheme and making an order that the complainant is to be compensated therefrom is beyond the competence of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 4038, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4038
Keywords
competence of tribunal
Consideration 6
Extract:
The IAEA requests the joinder of the present complaint with the complainant’s first complaint filed in the Tribunal. This request has, however, become moot because the Tribunal has already ruled on the complainant’s first complaint in Judgment 4023.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4023
Keywords
joinder; claim moot
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s request for the disclosure of “all documents related to the decision and the previous justification that were used for the [last] extension [of his fixed-term appointment in the P category]” is also moot inasmuch as he has acknowledged that the IAEA has provided him with the documents which he requested.
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; claim moot
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant provides no evidence that shows that his appointment in the P category was not exceptionally extended in circumstances in which he was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3298
Keywords
equal treatment
Consideration 16
Extract:
The JAB’s conclusions concerning the effect of the supervisors’ failure to communicate properly with the complainant during the process rest on good grounds, particularly given the JAB’s earlier statement that the complainant’s supervisors had admitted that that failure “had certainly exhibited a lack of compassion and they apologised for that”. Nonetheless, the JAB’s conclusions have no bearing on the legality of the impugned decision, notwithstanding they support an argument that the IAEA breached its duty of care to the complainant. But that is not the subject-matter of this complaint.
Keywords
duty to inform; duty of care
|