The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization (ILOAT) was established in 1946 as a successor of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, which had been in place from 927 to 1946. The tribunal hears cases from the employees of the International Labor Organization (ILO). Since its inception in 1946 ILOAT has been heard several cases against raised by the current and previous employees of the ILO. The officials of the ILO have also recognized the jurisdiction if the ILOAT. Some of the disputes that ILOAT solves include the provisions of the Staff Regulations or Staff Pensions Regulations (Germanotta, 2007). As well as the terms of appointment of the employees of ILO. Throughout the years of existence of ILOAT, several decisions made by the institution have been about the definition of the principle of equality, nondiscrimination of employees, and equal treatment of employees in their places of work. For ILOAT, the principle of equality requires that all the employees who are in the same position must be treated equally without any discrimination. However, different factual situations might exist thereby prompting an organization to adopt some rules that prescribe or allow reasonable distinctions.
Employers are supposed to give their employees the freedom of association, which is protected under international labor laws. ILOAT ensures that the essential rights of the employees are protected. The ILOAT usually hears cases from the staff members of international organizations that have recognized the jurisdiction of the institution. For instance, the Pan American Health Organization is one of the organizations that have recognized the jurisdiction of ILOAT, which implies that ILOAT can successfully intervene in cases involving employees of the Pan American Health Organization. Nevertheless, the filing of cases does not involve the suspension or delaying of the implementation of any decision that has been contested.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Article II. of the statute of ILOAT states that the tribunal is tasked with the hearing of complaints that allege non-observance, either in form or substance, of the employees' terms of appointment. Non-observance of the terms also extends to the Staff Regulations or Staff Pensions Regulations, which includes a husband or a wife and children of the employees of ILO (Von Potobsky, 1998). Also, ILOAT settles various disputes that concern employee compensation in case of injury or death of an employee that occurs in the course of the employment of the employee. The tribunal deals with cases involving employees of ILO whether the employee has retired or not or whether the employee has since died or still living.
In summary, ILO plays an important role in improving the working conditions of workers around the world. However, the institution is also one of the biggest employers since it employs thousands of people around the world. Thus, there is a need to come up with an institution that checks the compliance of ILO to the globally accepted working standard. The ILOAT was established over a half a decade ago as a successor of the Administrative Tribunal of the League of Nations, which had been in place from 927 to 1946. ILO hears cases from the employees of the International Labor Organization (ILO). Since the inception of ILOAT in 1946, the institution has heard several cases raised by the current and previous employees of the ILO. While it hears cases against the employees of the ILO, ILOAT usually hears disputes that include the provisions of the Staff Regulations or Staff Pensions Regulations. Throughout its existence, ILOAT has dealt with several cases involving nondiscrimination in the workplace.
References
Germanotta, P. (2007). ILO “Principles” on Freedom of Association: Prospects for Proletarian Power Beyond the State. WorkingUSA , 10 (2), 163-174. doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-4580.2007.00149.x
Von Potobsky, G. (1998). Freedom of association: The impact of Convention No. 87 and ILO action. Int'l Lab. Rev. , 137 , 195. doi.org/10.1093/ilj/27.3.169
