Judgment No. 4101
Decision
The complaints are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
special leave; harassment; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a complainant must not only have exhausted all internal remedies within his organization but also have duly complied with the rules governing the internal appeal procedure. Thus, if the internal appeal was irreceivable under those rules, the complaint filed with the Tribunal will also be irreceivable under Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal (see Judgment 1244, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1244
Keywords
receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; internal remedies exhausted; time bar; failure to exhaust internal remedies; late appeal
Consideration 3
Extract:
As the Tribunal has observed on various occasions, time limits are an objective matter of fact and strict adherence to them is necessary for the efficacy of the whole system of administrative and judicial review of decisions. To allow otherwise would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations (see Judgments 3704, considerations 2 and 3, and 3923, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3704, 3923
Keywords
internal remedies exhausted; time bar; late appeal
Consideration 3
Extract:
[S]taff members of international organizations have a duty to acquaint themselves with the rules and regulations which apply to them and cannot plead ignorance thereof (see Judgments 3135, consideration 14, and 3726, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3135, 3726
Keywords
duty to be informed; ignorance of the rules; duty to know the rules
Consideration 8
Extract:
According to the case law of the Tribunal, a decision on a request for special leave is discretionary (see, for example, Judgment 2262, consideration 2). Considering the discretion afforded to international organizations to take such decisions, such a decision is subject to only limited review and can be set aside only if it has been taken without authority or in breach of the rules of form or procedure, if it is based on an error of fact or law or has overlooked essential facts, if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the facts or if there is an abuse of authority (see Judgements 1929, consideration 5, and 2619, consideration 5). In this case, the Director did not exceed the limits of her discretionary authority, which the Tribunal must respect in exercising its limited power of review over such matters.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1929, 2262, 2619
Keywords
special leave; judicial review; discretion; limits
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords
equal treatment; special leave; discretion; discrimination
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he Director of the Centre was not obliged to refer the matter to a Commission of Inquiry. Paragraph 22 of Circular No. 13/2009 expressly provides that the Director may close the file “if the accusations of the alleged victim are insufficiently well founded”. In that case, her only obligation was to respond point by point to the complainant’s allegations. Considering the nature of the allegations and the answers given, the Director was not required to provide any further justification to the complainant (see Judgment 3149, consideration 17). The sole purpose of the preliminary assessment of such a complaint is to determine whether there are grounds for opening an investigation (see Judgment 3640, consideration 5). In the absence of a contrary provision, the adversarial principle did not need to be applied at this preliminary stage of the procedure for opening a harassment investigation.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3149, 3640
Keywords
inquiry; adversarial proceedings; harassment; motivation; investigation; motivation of final decision
Consideration 16
Extract:
Where any internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere in the case of manifest error (see Judgment 3831, consideration 28, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3831
Keywords
internal appeals body; evidence; manifest error
| 
