Judgment No. 4226
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute is clear in its terms. It provides that “[a] complaint shall not be receivable unless [...] the person concerned has exhausted such other means of redress as are open to her or him under the applicable Staff Regulations”. Article VII, paragraph 1, is satisfied when the complainant’s internal appeal has been paralysed (see, for example, Judgments 3685, consideration 6, 3302, consideration 4, and 2939, consideration 9) and the complainant has done her or his utmost to have the internal appeal resolved (see, for example, Judgments 2039, consideration 4, and 1674, consideration 6(b)). This case law simply identifies circumstances where the complainant can be treated as having exhausted internal means of redress, thus satisfying the provisions of the Article notwithstanding that, as a matter of fact, either an internal appeal body has not addressed the appeal or the executive head of the organisation has not done so at the time the complaint was filed with the Tribunal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 2039, 2939, 3302, 3685
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; direct appeal to tribunal; internal remedies exhausted; delay
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is difficult to say, in the face of this correspondence, that the complainant’s internal appeal had been paralysed. It is true that the appeal remained unaddressed by the Appeals Committee for a very long time though, in fact, a notice of hearing was issued on 4 April 2018 advising the complainant that the hearing would be held on 8 May 2018, which was later rescheduled to 22 May 2018 when it actually occurred. But the complainant was being told that his appeal would be heard and efforts were being made to ensure that that would happen. The appeal process was not paralysed and the complainant had not exhausted internal means of redress when he filed his complaint with the Tribunal. By operation of Article VII, paragraph 1, his first complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted
|
