ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > appointment

Judgment No. 4865

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

competition; internal candidate; priority; complaint dismissed

Consideration 2

Extract:

As it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to order an international organisation to make an appointment (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, and 2299, consideration 7), the complainant’s request to the Tribunal to appoint her directly to the post with full retroactive effect is rejected.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2299, 4100

Keywords

competence of tribunal; order; appointment; relief claimed

Consideration 7

Extract:

In the present case, the complainant argues that the impugned decision should be set aside because there was a dissenting opinion by a member of the Global Board of Appeal (GBA) who found that there was a breach of the selection procedure, but the Executive Director accepted the opinion of the majority of the GBA without explaining why she rejected the dissenting member’s recommendation. The argument is unfounded. In the case leading to Judgment 2347, the author of the impugned decision did not adequately explain why he rejected the Appeals Board’s recommendations. As a result, the complainant in that case was not in a position to make an informed decision whether or not to have recourse to the Tribunal and of the bases for challenging the impugned decision. In the present case, however, the Director General accepted the conclusions and recommendation of the majority of the GBA, and the reasons on which the majority reached those conclusions were fully explained in its report, thereby enabling the complainant to make the informed decision. This aligns with the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 10 of Judgment 4147 that when the executive head of an organisation accepts and adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself. There is no authority that requires an executive head of an organization having accepted the opinion of the majority of an internal appeal body to motivate or explain the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the minority. Even assuming that there was case law requiring that to be done, on the facts of this case, there was no need for the Executive Director to explain why she rejected the conclusions of the minority. It was clearly implicit in her acceptance of the opinion of the majority.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2347, 4147

Keywords

report of the internal appeals body; motivation of final decision



 
Last updated: 31.07.2024 ^ top