Waiver of internal appeal procedure (715,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Waiver of internal appeal procedure
Total judgments found: 5

• Judgment 4780

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the monthly amount deducted from her pension as contribution to her after-service health insurance in the period from May 2001 to December 2019.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  [T]he ITU consistently stated, including before the Appeal Board, that the complainant’s appeal was irreceivable for failure to address to the Secretary-General a request for reconsideration of the contested decision, as per the requirement in Staff Rule 11.1.2, and there is nothing on the file to indicate that the Secretary-General waived that requirement. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the ITU did not exempt the complainant from the requirement to submit a request for reconsideration in order to exhaust internal remedies.

  Keywords:

  internal remedies not exhausted; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4661

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and challenges overall the insurance policy.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  Even though the complainant had requested authorization to appeal the decision directly to the Tribunal, this request was rejected by the Secretary General […]. She has failed to provide the Tribunal with evidence that she was otherwise exempted from the obligation to exhaust internal procedures in compliance with Rule 13.4.1, paragraph 1, quoted in consideration 1. It is firm case law that a staff member is not allowed, on her or his own initiative, to evade the requirement that internal means of redress must be exhausted before a complaint is filed with the Tribunal (see Judgments 4443, consideration 11, and 3458, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3458, 4443
  

  Keywords:

  internal remedies not exhausted; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4558

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to reimburse the costs incurred in connection with his third complaint to the Tribunal.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  The Tribunal observes that it is contradictory and regrettable that the Organisation submits before it that the decision communicated to the complainant was not final while it had nevertheless specified, in its email [...], that the complainant could not submit a request for review. While an organisation has a duty to correct any mistakes made by an employee in the exercise of her or his right of appeal, it has an even greater duty not to misdirect an employee to the wrong venue by incorrectly telling her or him that a request for review is not the right remedy or that her or his only possible recourse is to file a complaint with the Tribunal and then criticise her or him for having followed its directions.
  Above all, however, the Tribunal notes that an organisation cannot exempt the complainant from the requirement to exhaust internal remedies when the applicable provisions of the staff rules and regulations do not authorise it to do so, and still less indicate wrongly to the employee concerned that she or he can file a complaint directly with the Tribunal.

  Keywords:

  final decision; organisation's duties; waiver of internal appeal procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3732

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  Universal Postal Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.

  Consideration 2

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, “the right to an internal appeal is a safeguard which international civil servants enjoy in addition to their right of appeal to a judicial authority (see, for example, [...] Judgments 2781, under 15, and 3067, under 20). This is especially true since internal appeal bodies may normally allow an appeal on grounds of fairness or advisability, whereas the Tribunal must essentially give a ruling on points of law. [...] [T]he review of a disputed decision in an internal appeal procedure may well suffice to resolve a dispute, one of the main justifications for the mandatory nature of such a procedure is to enable the Tribunal, in the event that a complaint is ultimately lodged, to have before it the findings of fact, items of information or assessment resulting from the deliberations of appeal bodies, especially those whose membership includes representatives of both staff and management, as is often the case (see, for example, Judgments 1141, under 17, or 2811, under 11). [...] [T]he Appeal Board plays a fundamental role in the resolution of disputes, owing to the guarantees of objectivity derived from its composition, its extensive knowledge of the functioning of the organisation and the broad investigative powers granted to it. By conducting hearings and investigative measures, it gathers the evidence and testimonies that are necessary in order to establish the facts, as well as the data needed for an informed assessment thereof.” (See Judgment 3424, considerations 11(a) and (b).) Therefore, considering the administrative, quasi-judicial nature of the internal appeal, both parties (staff and Administration) must be in agreement in order to bypass the internal appeal procedure, which is a fundamental element of the conflict resolution system of an international organization, and come directly before the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1141, 2781, 2811, 3067, 3424
  

  Keywords:

  waiver of internal appeal procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3267

  
  116th Session, 2014
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugned the decision not to waive the time limit for lodging an internal appeal, claiming that his heavy workload constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of a waiver.

  Considerations 3 and 4

  Extract:

  "It was not in issue that under Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3) the discretionary power to waive the time limits can be exercised in exceptional circumstances. That is what the rule said. In its reasons, the Board pointed to the need for certainty that is created by time limits but noted the discretion to waive them in exceptional circumstances. It did not consider there were such circumstances and that the complainant’s workload would not have prevented him from bringing his appeal in time, though it accepted that may have contributed to him overlooking the time limits.
  This reasoning is quite unexceptionable. The complainant argued the reasoning contained a “contradiction”. He pointed to the Board’s acknowledgement in its reasons that the complainant’s heavy workload may possibly have been a contributing factor in the complainant overlooking the deadline. However the substance of what the Board was saying was that it was not satisfied the circumstances were exceptional. It needed to be positively satisfied that they were before it could exercise the discretionary power to waive the time limits. There has been no miscarriage of the exercise of the discretionary power. The Board was not obliged, as the complainant submitted, to involve the Administration and it had power, under Staff Rule 11.1.1(e)(3)(b), to summarily dismiss the appeal as clearly irreceivable. It did so. The complaint to the Tribunal should be dismissed."

  Reference(s)

  Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 11.1.1(b)(3)
  
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; exception; internal appeal; time limit; waiver of internal appeal procedure;