Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT remanded the matter of the appeal to the IMO SAB under Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute for reconsideration and decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also noted that the Respondent must comply with its due process obligations.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The individual contested the decision of the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) not to reclassify her post, which was taken upon the recommendation of the Classification Committee and the subsequent recommendation from the Staff Appeals Board (SAB).
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT is competent to hear appeals from an international organization or other entities participating in the common system of conditions of service where a special agreement has been concluded which accepts the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT; however, such a special agreement may only be concluded where the organization or entity utilizes a neutral first instance process that includes a written record and written decision providing reasons, fact, and law.