Separation agreement (836,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Separation agreement
Total judgments found: 3

• Judgment 4941

  
  139th Session, 2025
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the validity of a settlement agreement and the decision to deny her request to be provided with copies of investigations reports concerning her complaint for harassment as well as the complaint for harassment filed against her.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law recognises that a valid agreement between, ordinarily, a staff member and the organisation employing them and often at the time of separation, can deny the staff member the otherwise extant right to pursue a grievance in this Tribunal about, in this example, the separation by rendering the complaint irreceivable (see, for example, Judgments 4161, consideration 11, and 3902, consideration 12). The separation agreement in the present case contained such a clause providing that “[the complainant] will be barred from initiating or pursuing any administrative or legal action against WFP concerning [her] employment with WFP” […].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3902, 4161
  

  Keywords:

  separation agreement;
  

  Considerations 4 and 12

  Extract:

  Duress involves the application of illegitimate pressure to induce a person to act and, in the typical case where duress is successfully raised as a defence, that pressure caused that person to act in the way sought. If the conduct was the execution of an agreement, then the agreement would have no legal effect if it had been entered into by the application of illegitimate pressure. It has been described in various ways in the Tribunal’s case law including the application of pressure which is unlawful (see Judgment 3680, citing Judgment 1075). But, importantly in the present case, it is pressure operating on the person at the time they act. Thus, it would have been pressure operating on the complainant at the time she signed the separation agreement on 21 November 2017. That is to say, pressure which caused her to sign the agreement.
  […]
  The Tribunal is not persuaded that the complainant was subject of duress when she executed the separation agreement. She is bound by its terms. Accordingly, she is precluded by the terms of that agreement from maintaining these proceedings in the Tribunal, including from requesting being provided with copies of the investigation reports pertaining to the complaint for harassment she filed, and the one filed against her. In the result, this complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1075, 3680
  

  Keywords:

  duress; separation agreement;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  amicable settlement; complaint dismissed; duress; separation agreement;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4072

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Since, under the applicable rules, the participation of the complainant in such a plan, either on account of supposed underperformance in the past or shortcomings in his future role, was not a valid option, it should not have been presented as a possible alternative to the signing of a separation agreement. In proposing this alternative, the Global Fund placed him under undue pressure (see Judgment 3610, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610
  

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; duress; separation agreement;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; complaint allowed; decision quashed; duress; lack of consent; separation agreement;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaint, namely that the complainant, by signing the separation agreement, waived his right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainant contends that he signed this agreement as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated his consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3424, consideration 12). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreement, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainant’s pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3424, 3610, 3750
  

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4071

  
  127th Session, 2019
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which they signed.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The defendant raises an objection to the receivability of the complaints, namely that the complainants, by signing the separation agreements, waived their right to challenge either the validity or the content thereof. However, since the complainants contend that they signed these agreements as a result of misrepresentation and pressure which vitiated their consent, this question of receivability is inseparable from the merits of the case (see Judgment 3423, consideration 13). As is also conceded by the defendant, the decision on the objection to receivability depends on the legal validity of the separation agreements, and this makes it necessary to consider the complainants’ pleas on the merits (see, in this regard, Judgments 3610, consideration 6, and 3750, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3423, 3610, 3750
  

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; duress; lack of consent; receivability of the complaint; separation agreement; waiver of right of appeal;
  

  Consideration 17

  Extract:

  Since, under the applicable rules, the participation of the complainants in such a plan, either on account of supposed underperformance in the past or shortcomings in their future role, was not a valid option, it should not have been presented as a possible alternative to the signing of a separation agreement. In proposing this alternative, the Global Fund placed them under undue pressure (see Judgment 3610, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3610
  

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; duress; separation agreement;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  agreed termination; complaint allowed; decision quashed; duress; lack of consent; separation agreement;