Duty to forward appeal to competent body (752,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Duty to forward appeal to competent body
Total judgments found: 5

• Judgment 4829

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his compensation claim for service-incurred injury and illness as time-barred.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  The Tribunal finds that the IAEA, pursuant to its duty of care, ought to have treated the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter as the initiation of a compensation claim for a work-related injury. Therefore, it follows that the complainant’s claim was timely submitted under Appendix D and should be considered by the JABCC.

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  [T]he approach taken by the Director General in the impugned decision is problematic.
  First, he erred in treating the complainant’s letter of 5 December 2019 as a letter merely “addressing return-to-work issues”. On the contrary, it is clear that in his 5 December 2019 letter the complainant intended to report his work-related accident to the IAEA and he did so about two months after the reported accident. This was within the four-month applicable time limit. In that letter, the complainant wrote: “Please accept this letter as written notice that on 4th of October 2019 I was involved in a work accident in my office”. The complainant also described the circumstances of his accident and the details of his treatment, and indicated that he might need further sick leave in the coming weeks. The letter was accompanied by a medical report of his status, diagnosis, and treatment. Interpreting a letter primarily focused on reporting a work-related accident, including by describing the circumstances thereof and attaching a medical report, solely as a sick leave request or a letter addressing return-to-work issues, overlooked its potential relevance to a compensation claim.
  Second, according to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgment 4369, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein). In addition, if a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see Judgment 4006, consideration 13). Accordingly, an international organisation is under an obligation to clearly communicate to its staff members the appropriate procedures for submitting claims for compensation for service-incurred injuries or illnesses. This obligation is particularly important where procedural rules are unclear and could result in significant adverse consequences for staff members who are genuinely misguided on the procedures they must follow. As previously noted, Appendix D does not explicitly detail the procedural formalities for submitting a compensation claim for service-incurred injury or illness, such as its format or intended recipient. Therefore, the IAEA had a duty to provide procedural guidance to the complainant who was mistaken in the exercise of his right. Rather than penalizing him for procedural non-compliance, which at least in part stemmed from the lack of clarity in its own rules, the IAEA should have guided the complainant to follow the appropriate procedures.
  The Tribunal is of the opinion that the VIC Medical Service should have forwarded the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent body within the organisation. The necessity of forwarding to the competent body within the organization appeals addressed to the wrong body is articulated in Judgment 3034, consideration 15, as follows:
  “[T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).” (See also Judgment 4140, consideration 6.)
  This case law equally applies to the present case concerning a claim for compensation for service-incurred injury addressed to the wrong body. The duty to re-direct an incorrectly filed claim for compensation for a work-related injury or illness to the competent body within the organization is an integral part of the duty of care incumbent upon organisations. It is intended to ensure that staff members are not deprived of their right to compensation for service-incurred injury or illness because of procedural missteps which can easily be remedied by re-directing compensation claims to the competent authority.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3034, 4006, 4369
  

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  Regarding the complainant’s claim for moral damages, the IAEA’s failure in its duty to forward the complainant’s 5 December 2019 letter to the DIR-MTHR, the competent authority within the IAEA to be notified of work-related accidents and/or illnesses, has added to the delay in the final settlement of this case, whatever its eventual outcome may be (see Judgment 3674, consideration 10). This alone caused the complainant injury for which he is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; delay; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; moral damages; service-incurred;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  claim; compensation; complaint allowed; duty of care; duty to forward appeal to competent body; illness; injury; service-incurred;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4542

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges her performance evaluation during her probationary period.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal’s settled case law states that an appeal submitted to the wrong authority within the prescribed time limit is not irreceivable on that account, because it is for that authority, in such circumstances, to forward it to the authority which is competent, within the organisation, to hear it (see Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 2017, consideration 6, 2345, consideration 1(b), 2882, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, 3423, consideration 9(b), 3424, consideration 8(b), 3425, consideration 7, and 3595, consideration 10). In such a situation, it is therefore not sufficient for the incompetent authority merely to inform the complainant that it is not competent and to suggest that she or he apply to the competent authority (see Judgment 3595, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2017, 2345, 2882, 3027, 3423, 3424, 3425, 3595
  

  Keywords:

  duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4517

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks restoration of her entitlements to healthcare and health insurance.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Although it is true that the request was sent to the Director of the Human Resources Management Department and not to the Secretary-General as Staff Rule 11.1.2 requires, under the Tribunal’s settled case law according to which rules of procedure must not be construed too pedantically, an internal appeal submitted to the wrong authority is not irreceivable on that account and it is for that authority, in such circumstances, simply to forward it to the one which is competent to hear it (see, for example, Judgments 1832, consideration 6, 3027, consideration 7, or 3424, consideration 8(b)).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3027, 3424
  

  Keywords:

  duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4006

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision of the Presidency of the Court to set aside his Complaint for the removal from office of the Registrar of the Court.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [I]f a member of staff pursues a grievance by an incorrect procedure, but there is another procedure which would be appropriate, the organisation is under a duty to advise the staff member to follow the appropriate procedure (see, for example, Judgment 2345, consideration 1(c)).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345
  

  Keywords:

  duty to forward appeal to competent body;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3034

  
  111th Session, 2011
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  [T]he procedural rules for lodging an internal appeal must not set a trap for staff members who are endeavouring to defend
  their rights; they must not be construed too pedantically and, if they are broken, the penalty must fit the purpose of the rule. For that very reason, an official who appeals to the wrong body does not on that account forfeit the right of appeal. In such circumstances this body must forward the appeal to the competent body within the organisation in order that it may examine it and the person concerned is not deprived of his/her right of appeal (see, in this connection, Judgments 1832, under 6, and 2882, under 6).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 2882
  

  Keywords:

  duty to forward appeal to competent body; internal appeal;