## j1998-1 - Introduction

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [j1998-1 - Introduction](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j1998-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j1998-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j1998-1.pdf.json)

---

### Case background
- On December 17 and 18, 1998, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, met to adjudge the case brought against the International Monetary Fund by Ms. “Y”, a former staff member of the Fund.
- Ms. “Y” had been employed with the Fund since 1971; in 1995 the position of which she was the incumbent was abolished.
- In 1996 Ms. “Y” requested a review of her grade as well as of the abolition of her position under an ad hoc review procedure introduced to redress past, and preclude future, discrimination in the Fund.
- Allegations by the Applicant: her grade and the abolition of her position had been influenced by gender, age and career stream discrimination.
- An ad hoc review team (an outside consultant and a senior member of the Administration Department) concluded there was no evidence of discrimination in the grading and abolition of the position.
- The Director of Administration informed the Applicant that she concurred with that conclusion. The Applicant challenged that decision before the Tribunal.

### Procedural history and filings
- On August 7, 1998 an Application was filed by Ms. “Y”.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure asserting Applicant failed to exhaust all available channels of administrative review.
- Under Rule XII, para. 2: “The Fund may file such a motion within thirty days of its receipt of the application. The filing of the motion shall suspend the period of time for answering the application until the motion is acted on by the Tribunal.”
- The Motion for Summary Dismissal suspended the period for answering; the Tribunal’s present consideration was therefore confined to jurisdictional issues.
- Rule XII, para. 5 allowed the Applicant to file a written objection within thirty days from transmission of the motion; the President granted an additional 15 days to file the Objection under paragraph 2 of Rule XXI to permit revision of requested documents.
- The Fund presented views on Applicant’s amended request for documents on October 23, 1998.
- The amended request for documents was rejected as clearly irrelevant to the jurisdictional aspects before the Tribunal; the President exercised authority under Rule XVII, para. 4 to reject the request.
- The Tribunal denied Applicant’s request for oral proceedings because Rule XIII, paragraph 1’s condition that they be "necessary for the disposition of the case" (confined to jurisdictional issues) was not met.

### Facts: employment history, abolition of post, and review timeline
- Applicant employment and grade history:
  - Employed as a staff member of the Fund on July 1, 1971.
  - Promoted to a professional position in 1983.
  - In 1987, after appealing her job grade, promoted to grade A11, which she still held in 1995.
  - Worked in Department No. I from July 1985 to October 31, 1995.
- Abolition of post and interim arrangements:
  - Following a merger of two Departments, Applicant’s position was abolished effective May 1, 1995.
  - Efforts were made over a six month period to find an alternative position.
  - Applicant was assigned, on an exceptional basis, to a Temporary Assignment Position (TAP) in Department No. II for an initial period of 10 months from January 2, 1996 through October 31, 1996.
  - The TAP was later extended for an additional four-month period through the end of February 1997.
  - Applicant’s selection for the TAP suspended the 120 day notice period and separation leave and served as a bridge to eligibility for an early retirement pension and continued health insurance.
- Ad hoc discrimination review timeline:
  - August 28, 1996: Director of Administration issued memorandum announcing guidelines for ad hoc discrimination review.
  - September 30, 1996: Applicant requested a review alleging discrimination based on profession, gender and age.
  - December 23, 1996: Fund informed Applicant she was not eligible to participate because she would shortly be separating on early retirement and remedial action would be forward-looking.
  - June 23, 1997: Applicant filed a formal grievance with the Grievance Committee contesting the ineligibility decision.
  - June 27, 1997: Director of Administration advised Applicant that the Fund would carry out a review of her discrimination claim (reversing the prior exclusion) and rendered the June 1997 grievance moot.
  - Review conducted by an ad hoc review team (outside consultant and senior Administration official); team concluded no evidence supported discrimination affecting grading or abolition of Applicant’s post.
  - December 19, 1997: Applicant informed of review team conclusion in a meeting.
  - January 27, 1998: Applicant, through counsel, requested Director of Administration to conduct an administrative review of the decision.
  - February 10, 1998: Director of Administration replied explaining basis for conclusion and offered Applicant an opportunity to meet again with the review team; Applicant did not take up the offer.
  - March 24, 1998: Applicant’s counsel wrote again, challenging the process and repeating request for administrative review.
  - May 8, 1998: Director of Administration wrote to Applicant’s counsel concurring with the review team and declining relief.
  - August 7, 1998: Applicant filed a complaint with the Tribunal.

### The Ad Hoc Review of Discrimination — structure, scope and procedures
- Origins and managerial statements:
  - Resulted from the report of the Consultant on Discrimination and memoranda from the Managing Director (February 9, 1996; July 26, 1996) addressing staff diversity and past discrimination.
  - Managing Director memoranda emphasized addressing past discrimination that may have adversely affected careers and using existing procedures to act decisively.
- Announcement and identification of cases:
  - August 28, 1996 memorandum set forth avenues for identification including self-identification and referrals by Department Heads, Senior Personnel Managers, Administrative Officers, and the Diversity Advisor by September 30, 1996.
  - Applicant self-identified by e-mail stating: “I believe that my Fund career was adversely affected by profession-, gender-, and age-based discrimination. A background note about my case, which culminated in the abolishment of my position, is attached.”
- Operational procedures and remedial aims:
  - The ad hoc review was a one-time review concluding September 30, 1996.
  - Reviews would draw on input of subordinates, peers, supervisors; reviewers may meet with employees; remedies would generally be prospective and constructive, within existing personnel policies (assignments, mobility, training, promotions, salary adjustments).
  - January 13, 1997 memorandum stated reviews would be carried out by external consultants assisted by a small number of Fund staff, working in pairs, meeting concerned individuals and making recommendations; feedback sessions would inform employees of outcomes and identified discrimination would lead to further action to identify opportunities.
- In Applicant’s case:
  - Review team: Assistant Director of Administration and an outside consultant.
  - Conclusion: no evidence of discrimination in Applicant’s grade or in the abolition of her position.

### Legal framework: Articles V and VI and GAO No. 31 (Rev. 3)
- Article V key provisions (selected exact text preserved):
  - "1.When the Fund has established channels of administrative review for the settlement of disputes, an application may be filed with the Tribunal only after the applicant has exhausted all available channels of administrative review."
  - "2.For purposes of this Statute, where the available channels of administrative review include a procedure established by the Fund for the consideration of complaints and grievances of individual staff members on matters involving the consistency of actions taken in their individual cases with the regulations governing personnel and their conditions of service, administrative review shall be deemed to have been exhausted when:
    a.  three months  have elapsed since a recommendation on the matter has been made to the Managing Director and the applicant has not received a decision stating that the relief he requested would be granted;
    b.  a decision denying the relief requested has been notified to the applicant; or
    c.  two months have elapsed since a decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant, and the necessary measures have not actually been taken."
  - "3.  For purposes of this Statute, where the available channels of review do not include the procedure described in Section 2, a channel of administrative review shall be deemed to have been exhausted when:
    a.  three months have elapsed since the request for review was made and no decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant;
    b.  a decision denying the relief requested has been notified to the applicant; or
    c.  two months have elapsed since a decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant, and the necessary measures have not actually been taken."
- Article VI (selected text preserved):
  - "1.An application challenging the legality of an individual decision shall not be admissible if filed with the Tribunal more than three months after all available channels of administrative review have been exhausted, or, in the absence of such channels, after the notification of the decision."
- Commentary explanation (preserved wording):
  - "Article V prescribes an exhaustion of remedies requirement with respect to the admissibility of applications before the tribunal. Cases otherwise falling within the tribunal's competence would be admissible only if applicable administrative remedies have been exhausted. The exhaustion requirement is imposed by the statutes of all major administrative tribunals, presumably for the reason that the tribunal is intended as the forum of last resort after all other channels of recourse have been attempted by the staff member, and the administration has had a full opportunity to assess a complaint in order to determine whether corrective measures are appropriate."
  - The Commentary restates the Section 2 exhaustion events using "three months" and "two months" time frames.
  - It notes that agreement between Fund and applicant to bypass administrative review results in all channels being considered exhausted.
- Grievance Committee jurisdiction and GAO No. 31 (Rev. 3) excerpts (exact text preserved):
  - "4.01 Committee’s Jurisdiction. Subject to the limitations set forth at Section 4.03, the Grievance Committee shall have jurisdiction to hear any complaint brought by a staff member to the extent that the staff member contends that he or she has been adversely affected by a decision that was inconsistent with Fund regulations governing personnel and their conditions of service."
  - "4.02 Exhaustion of Administrative Review. The Committee shall have jurisdiction to hear a case only after the grievant has exhausted the applicable channels of administrative review set forth in Section 6 of this Order, unless the Managing Director, or the Managing Director’s designee, agrees that the grievance may be submitted directly to the Committee."
  - "6.02 Grievances Concerning a Staff Member’s Work or Career. ... the staff member shall first submit a request for review in writing to his or her Department Head ... Except as provided in Section 6.02.1, the request must be submitted within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later. The Department Head, or his or her designee, shall have 15 days in which to respond in writing to the request for review."
  - "6.02.2 ... the staff member may appeal the decision to the Director of Administration within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later..."
  - "6.04 Appeal to the Director of Administration. ... the staff member may request in writing a review by the Director of Administration. The written request must be submitted within 30 days after the response ... has been received or the deadline for a response has passed, whichever is earlier."
  - "6.05 Exhaustion of Administrative Review. The channels of administrative review shall be considered exhausted, for purposes of filing a grievance with the Committee, when the staff member has received a response to his or her written request or no response has been received within 15 days of its submission to the Director of Administration."
  - "6.06 Decisions Taken by Managing Director or Director of Administration. With respect to any decision that was taken directly by the Director of Administration or by the Managing Director, or by the Managing Director’s designee, the staff member may file a grievance with the Committee within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later."
  - "6.07 Time Limits. A staff member shall be required to exhaust the applicable channels of administrative review within the required time limits before submitting a grievance to the Grievance Committee."

### Parties’ principal arguments on admissibility (exhaustion)
- Fund’s Motion to Dismiss (threshold: failure to exhaust administrative remedies):
  - Applicant failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Statute; non-exhaustion would undermine the Tribunal as forum of last resort.
  - Specific contentions:
    - By not pursuing challenge before the Grievance Committee, Applicant has not met Article V, Section 1 exhaustion requirement.
    - The May 8, 1998 letter from the Director of Administration cannot be considered a final individual decision for exhaustion purposes because exhaustion is satisfied by one of three events under the Statute (a, b, c).
    - The Grievance Committee exists to consider individual complaints regarding personnel matters and has jurisdiction over discretionary and non-discretionary decisions; Applicant did not appeal the ad hoc review decision to the Grievance Committee.
    - Applicant’s appeal to the Director of Administration satisfied exhaustion for submission to the Grievance Committee under GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Sec. 6.05, but not for admissibility before the Tribunal under Article V; Applicant confused distinct requirements.
    - The June 1997 grievance addressed a different decision (initial exclusion from the ad hoc review) than the present challenge (finding of no discrimination); because the June 1997 grievance was rendered moot by reversal, it does not satisfy exhaustion requirements for the present claim.
    - Memoranda made clear the one-time ad hoc review was not intended to replace the Fund’s grievance procedures (August 28, 1996 memorandum; reiterated February 10, 1998).
    - It is a well-established rule of law that staff must strictly comply with rules and procedures for bringing complaints and appeals.
    - Director of Administration reviewed and concurred with the review team pursuant to GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Section 6.04, which provides for appeal to the Director of Administration for review of decisions concerning a Staff Member’s career.
    - Applicant was aware of administrative remedies under GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, pursued an appeal to the Director of Administration but did not proceed to the Grievance Committee; therefore she did not exhaust available channels required by the Statute and instead bypassed the Grievance Committee and applied directly to the Tribunal.
- Applicant’s contentions (Application and Objection):
  - The May 8, 1998 letter from the Director of Administration should be considered a final individual decision and the effective end of the administrative process which Applicant pursued for a period far in excess of one year without relief or verifiable evidence that the procedure was carried out.
  - Applicant relies on the July 26, 1996 Memorandum from the Managing Director (“Measures to Promote Staff Diversity and Address Discrimination”), arguing the Managing Director made the grievance process secondary to honest review and full relief to aggrieved participants. Applicant quoted:
    - “Questions of past discrimination must be addressed, and even where these staff could have availed themselves of the Fund’s grievance procedures I believe the onus is on us. We are already looking into some identified cases and, as noted above, I have asked the Administration Department and the two Review Committees to look more broadly at individual staff member’s career progress and opportunities. I also expect departments to help ensure that any cases where corrective action may be required are brought to Management’s attention. We are determined to address this issue and believe that we can do so most quickly and effectively by acting decisively within the existing framework of our procedures.”
  - Applicant characterized the ad hoc discrimination review as an informal, one-time, alternative procedure intended to provide relief where Grievance Committee jurisdiction did not lie (e.g., time-barred cases).
  - Applicant argued exhaustion under Article V, Section 3(b) was met by the Director of Administration’s denial and thus the Tribunal filing was timely.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings on exhaustion and jurisdiction
- Distinction emphasized:
  - Between cases within the competence of the Grievance Committee and those subject to another review process; exhaustion requirements depend on which category applies.
- Key factual and legal findings:
  - The ad hoc review did not go through mandatory steps in Sections 6.02, 6.03, 6.04 and 6.05 and could not have done so because the mandatory time periods for each of these steps had expired when the review was undertaken.
  - The ad hoc review involved an outside consultant and an official of the Administrative Department outside the hierarchy constituting the GAO channel of review up to, but not including, the Director of Administration.
  - Because the decision was not a follow-up of the mandatory preceding steps, it should be considered as taken "directly" by the Director of Administration within the meaning of Section 6.06.
  - The memoranda establishing the ad hoc discrimination review procedure emphasized it "was not meant to be in lieu of, and not meant to obviate recourse to, the Grievance Committee" and contrasted the informal ad hoc review with formal established review procedures.
  - The Tribunal found the memoranda could have been more explicit, and the lack of clarity may have led Applicant to conclude Grievance Committee exhaustion was not required; however, the Tribunal held that exhaustion of the remedies provided by the Grievance Committee, where they exist, is statutorily required and the memoranda do not exclude that requirement.
  - The Tribunal noted that recourse to the Grievance Committee would produce a detailed factual and legal record of great assistance to the Administrative Tribunal.
- Decision on admissibility:
  - The Tribunal concluded Applicant has not exhausted the channels of administrative review as required by Article V of the Statute.
  - Resulting disposition:
    - The Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted.
    - The Administrative Tribunal will reconsider the Applicant’s claim on the basis of the Application then before it if the Grievance Committee, if seized, decides that it does not have jurisdiction over that claim.

### Formal decision and signatories
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides:
  - First, the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted;
  - Second, the Administrative Tribunal will reconsider the Applicant’s claim on the basis of the Application now before it, in the event that the Grievance Committee, if seized, decides that it does not have jurisdiction over that claim.
- Signatories and date (preserved):
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Philine R. Lachman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C.
  - December 18, 1998

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Decision, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1998.*

### Introduction

### j1998-1 - Introduction

### Case background
- On December 17 and 18, 1998, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, met to adjudge the case brought against the International Monetary Fund by Ms. “Y”, a former staff member of the Fund.
- Ms. “Y” had been employed with the Fund since 1971; in 1995 the position of which she was the incumbent was abolished.
- In 1996 Ms. “Y” requested a review of her grade as well as of the abolition of her position under an ad hoc review procedure introduced to redress past, and preclude future, discrimination in the Fund.
- Allegations by the Applicant: her grade and the abolition of her position had been influenced by gender, age and career stream discrimination.
- The ad hoc review team, consisting of an outside consultant and a senior member of the Administration Department, concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination in the grading and abolition of the position.
- The Director of Administration informed the Applicant that she concurred with that conclusion. The Applicant challenged that decision before the Tribunal.

### Procedural history and filings
- On August 7, 1998 an Application was filed by Ms. “Y”.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure on the ground that Applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement that an Application may be filed with the Tribunal only after Applicant has exhausted all available channels of administrative review.
- Pursuant to para. 2 of Rule XII: “The Fund may file such a motion within thirty days of its receipt of the application. The filing of the motion shall suspend the period of time for answering the application until the motion is acted on by the Tribunal.”
- A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period of time for answering the Application until the Motion is acted on by the Tribunal; hence the Tribunal’s present consideration is confined to the jurisdictional issues of the case.

### Extensions, objections, and document requests
- Rule XII, para. 5 provides: “The Applicant may file with the Registrar a written objection to the motion within thirty days from the date on which the motion is transmitted to him.”
- The President, exercising authority under paragraph 2 of Rule XXI, decided to grant the Applicant an additional 15 days to file her Objection, in order to enable her to revise the list of documents and other evidence which she had requested the Tribunal to order the Fund to produce.
- Rule XXI (as cited): “The Tribunal, or, when the Tribunal is not in session, the President after consultation where appropriate with the members of the Tribunal may in exceptional cases modify the application of these Rules, including any time limits thereunder.”
- The Fund presented its views on Applicant’s amended request for documents on October 23, 1998.
- Rule XVII (Production of Documents) (excerpt):
  - “1. The Applicant may, before the closure of the pleadings, request the Tribunal to order the production of documents or other evidence which he has requested and to which he has been denied access by the Fund, accompanied by any relevant documentation bearing upon the request and the denial or lack of access. The Fund shall be given an opportunity to present its views on the matter to the Tribunal.
  - 2. The Tribunal may reject the request to the extent that it finds that the documents or other evidence requested are clearly irrelevant to the case, or that compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome or would infringe on the privacy of individuals. For purposes of assessing the issue of privacy, the Tribunal may examine in camera the documents requested.”

### Tribunal rulings on requests and proceedings
- The amended request for documents was rejected on the ground that the documents and other evidence requested were clearly irrelevant to the case before the Tribunal, which is limited to its jurisdictional aspects.
- Paragraph 4 of Rule XVII: “When the Tribunal is not in session, the President shall exercise the powers set forth in this Rule.” The President exercised that authority in rejecting the amended request.
- The Tribunal denied Applicant’s request for oral proceedings because the condition laid down in Rule XIII, paragraph 1 that they be "necessary for the disposition of the case" (confined to the jurisdictional issues) was not met.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Introduction*

### 3. The Tribunal may, subject to Article X, Section 1 of the Statute, order the production of documents or other

### 3. The Tribunal may, subject to Article X, Section 1 of the Statute, order the production of documents or other evidence in the possession of the Fund, and may request information which it deems useful to its judgment.

### The facts
- Applicant employment and grade history:
  - Employed as a staff member of the Fund on July 1, 1971.
  - Promoted to a professional position in 1983.
  - In 1987, after appealing her job grade, promoted to grade A11, which she still held in 1995.
  - Worked in Department No. I from July 1985 to October 31, 1995.
- Abolition of post and interim arrangements:
  - Following a merger of two Departments, Applicant’s position was abolished effective May 1, 1995.
  - Efforts were made over a six month period to find an alternative position.
  - Applicant was assigned, on an exceptional basis, to a Temporary Assignment Position (TAP) in Department No. II for an initial period of 10 months from January 2, 1996 through October 31, 1996.
  - The TAP was later extended for an additional four-month period through the end of February 1997.
  - Applicant’s selection for the TAP suspended the 120 day notice period and separation leave and served as a bridge to eligibility for an early retirement pension and continued health insurance.
- Ad hoc discrimination review timeline:
  - August 28, 1996: Director of Administration issued memorandum announcing guidelines for ad hoc discrimination review.
  - September 30, 1996: Applicant requested a review alleging discrimination based on profession, gender and age.
  - December 23, 1996: Fund informed Applicant she was not eligible to participate because she would shortly be separating on early retirement and remedial action would be forward-looking.
  - June 23, 1997: Applicant filed a formal grievance with the Grievance Committee contesting the ineligibility decision.
  - June 27, 1997: Director of Administration advised Applicant that the Fund would carry out a review of her discrimination claim (reversing the prior exclusion) and rendered the June 1997 grievance moot.
  - Review conducted by an ad hoc review team (outside consultant and senior Administration official); team concluded no evidence supported discrimination affecting grading or abolition of Applicant’s post.
  - December 19, 1997: Applicant informed of review team conclusion in a meeting.
  - January 27, 1998: Applicant, through counsel, requested Director of Administration to conduct an administrative review of the decision.
  - February 10, 1998: Director of Administration replied explaining basis for conclusion and offered Applicant an opportunity to meet again with the review team; Applicant did not take up the offer.
  - March 24, 1998: Applicant’s counsel wrote again, challenging the process and repeating request for administrative review.
  - May 8, 1998: Director of Administration wrote to Applicant’s counsel concurring with the review team and declining relief.
  - August 7, 1998: Applicant filed a complaint with the Tribunal.

### The Ad Hoc Review of Discrimination — structure, scope and procedures
- Origins and managerial statements:
  - Resulted from the report of the Consultant on Discrimination and subsequent memoranda from the Managing Director (February 9, 1996; July 26, 1996) addressing staff diversity and past discrimination.
  - Managing Director memoranda emphasized addressing cases where past discrimination may have adversely affected careers and using existing procedures to act decisively.
- Announcement and identification of cases:
  - August 28, 1996 memorandum set forth avenues for identification including self-identification and referrals from Department Heads, Senior Personnel Managers, Administrative Officers, and the Diversity Advisor by September 30, 1996.
  - Applicant self-identified by e-mail stating: “I believe that my Fund career was adversely affected by profession-, gender-, and age-based discrimination. A background note about my case, which culminated in the abolishment of my position, is attached.”
- Operational procedures and remedial aims:
  - The ad hoc review was a one-time review concluding September 30, 1996.
  - Reviews would draw on input of subordinates, peers, supervisors; reviewers may meet with employees; remedies would generally be prospective and constructive, within existing personnel policies (assignments, mobility, training, promotions, salary adjustments).
  - January 13, 1997 memorandum stated reviews would be carried out by external consultants assisted by a small number of Fund staff, working in pairs, meeting concerned individuals and making recommendations; feedback sessions would inform employees of outcomes and identified discrimination would lead to further action to identify opportunities.
- In Applicant’s case:
  - Review team: Assistant Director of Administration and an outside consultant.
  - Conclusion: no evidence of discrimination in Applicant’s grade or in the abolition of her position.

### Summary of principal arguments concerning the admissibility of the claim

- The Fund’s arguments in its Motion to Dismiss (threshold: irreceivable for failure to exhaust administrative remedies):
  - Applicant failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Statute; failure to do so would undermine the Tribunal as a forum of last resort.
  - Specific contentions:
    - By not pursuing challenge before the Grievance Committee in accordance with established procedures, Applicant has not met Article V, Section 1 of the Statute requirement to exhaust all available channels of review.
    - The May 8, 1998 letter from the Director of Administration cannot be considered a final individual decision for purposes of exhaustion because, under the Statute, where available channels include a formal grievance procedure, exhaustion is satisfied by one of three events:
      - (a) recommendation made to the Managing Director and applicant has received no decision granting relief within three months;
      - (b) applicant receives notice of a decision denying the request;
      - (c) applicant received notice of a decision granting the relief requested, but relief has not been received within two months.
    - The Grievance Committee exists to consider individual complaints regarding personnel matters and conditions of service and has jurisdiction over discretionary and non-discretionary decisions; Applicant did not appeal the ad hoc review decision to the Grievance Committee and thus did not exhaust administrative review.
    - Applicant’s appeal to the Director of Administration satisfied exhaustion for the purposes of submitting a grievance to the Grievance Committee under GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Sec. 6.05, but not for admissibility before the Tribunal under Article V of the Statute; Applicant confused the distinct requirements.
    - The June 1997 grievance addressed a different decision (initial exclusion from the ad hoc review) than the present challenge (finding of no discrimination); because the June 1997 grievance was rendered moot by reversal, it does not satisfy exhaustion requirements for the present claim.
    - The Fund’s memoranda made clear the one-time ad hoc review was not intended to replace or replicate the Fund’s grievance procedures (August 28, 1996 memorandum; reiterated February 10, 1998).
    - It is a well-established rule of law, followed by major international organization administrative tribunals, that staff must strictly comply with rules and procedures established for bringing complaints and appeals.
    - Director of Administration reviewed and concurred with the review team pursuant to GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Section 6.04, which provides for appeal to the Director of Administration for review of decisions concerning a Staff Member’s career.
    - Applicant was aware of administrative remedies under GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, pursued an appeal to the Director of Administration but did not proceed to the Grievance Committee; therefore she did not exhaust available channels required by the Statute and instead bypassed the Grievance Committee and applied directly to the Tribunal.

- Applicant’s contentions (as set forth in her Application and Objection):
  - The May 8, 1998 letter from the Director of Administration should be considered a final individual decision and the effective end of the administrative process which Applicant has pursued for a period far in excess of one year without relief or verifiable evidence that the procedure was carried out.
  - Applicant relies on the July 26, 1996 Memorandum from the Managing Director (“Measures to Promote Staff Diversity and Address Discrimination”), arguing the Managing Director made the grievance process secondary to honest review and full relief to aggrieved participants. Applicant quotes:
    - “Questions of past discrimination must be addressed, and even where these staff could have availed themselves of the Fund’s grievance procedures I believe the onus is on us. We are already looking into some identified cases and, as noted above, I have asked the Administration Department and the two Review Committees to look more broadly at individual staff member’s career progress and opportunities. I also expect departments to help ensure that any cases where corrective action may be required are brought to Management’s attention. We are determined to address this issue and believe that we can do so most quickly and effectively by acting decisively within the existing framework of our procedures.”

*International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal case j1998-1.*

### 25. The admissibility of claims is governed by Articles V and VI of the Statute which

### 25. The admissibility of claims is governed by Articles V and VI of the Statute which

### Legal framework: Articles V and VI
- Article V prescribes as a pre-condition of admissibility the completion of the applicable administrative review.
- Quoted text of ARTICLE V (selected provisions preserved exactly):
  - "1.When the Fund has established channels of administrative review for the settlement of disputes, an application may be filed with the Tribunal only after the applicant has exhausted all available channels of administrative review."
  - "2.For purposes of this Statute, where the available channels of administrative review include a procedure established by the Fund for the consideration of complaints and grievances of individual staff members on matters involving the consistency of actions taken in their individual cases with the regulations governing personnel and their conditions of service, administrative review shall be deemed to have been exhausted when:
    a.  three months  have elapsed since a recommendation on the matter has been made to the Managing Director and the applicant has not received a decision stating that the relief he requested would be granted;
    b.  a decision denying the relief requested has been notified to the applicant; or
    c.  two months have elapsed since a decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant, and the necessary measures have not actually been taken."
  - "3.  For purposes of this Statute, where the available channels of review do not include the procedure described in Section 2, a channel of administrative review shall be deemed to have been exhausted when:
    a.  three months have elapsed since the request for review was made and no decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant;
    b.  a decision denying the relief requested has been notified to the applicant; or
    c.  two months have elapsed since a decision stating that the relief requested would be granted has been notified to the applicant, and the necessary measures have not actually been taken."
- Quoted text of ARTICLE VI:
  - "1.An application challenging the legality of an individual decision shall not be admissible if filed with the Tribunal more than three months after all available channels of administrative review have been exhausted, or, in the absence of such channels, after the notification of the decision."

### Commentary and rationale for exhaustion requirement
- The published Commentary explains the exhaustion requirement as follows (preserved wording):
  - "Article V prescribes an exhaustion of remedies requirement with respect to the admissibility of applications before the tribunal. Cases otherwise falling within the tribunal's competence would be admissible only if applicable administrative remedies have been exhausted. The exhaustion requirement is imposed by the statutes of all major administrative tribunals, presumably for the reason that the tribunal is intended as the forum of last resort after all other channels of recourse have been attempted by the staff member, and the administration has had a full opportunity to assess a complaint in order to determine whether corrective measures are appropriate."
  - The Commentary restates the Section 2 exhaustion events: recommendation to Managing Director with no decision granting relief within "three months"; notification of a decision denying the request; decision granting relief but relief not forthcoming after "two months".
  - It also notes agreement between Fund and applicant to bypass administrative review results in all channels being considered exhausted.
  - "In situations where recourse to the Grievance Committee or other formal procedure is not applicable, administrative review of a request would be considered as exhausted by any of the outcomes described in Section 3."

### Grievance Committee jurisdiction and GAO No. 31 (Rev. 3) procedural requirements
- Grievance Committee jurisdiction (GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, quoted provisions preserved):
  - "4.01 Committee’s Jurisdiction. Subject to the limitations set forth at Section 4.03, the Grievance Committee shall have jurisdiction to hear any complaint brought by a staff member to the extent that the staff member contends that he or she has been adversely affected by a decision that was inconsistent with Fund regulations governing personnel and their conditions of service."
  - "4.02 Exhaustion of Administrative Review. The Committee shall have jurisdiction to hear a case only after the grievant has exhausted the applicable channels of administrative review set forth in Section 6 of this Order, unless the Managing Director, or the Managing Director’s designee, agrees that the grievance may be submitted directly to the Committee."
  - "4.04 The Grievance Committee’s Examination of its Jurisdiction. The Committee, for the purpose of proceeding with a grievance, shall decide whether it has jurisdiction over the matter."
- Section 6 procedural time limits and steps (quoted excerpts preserved):
  - "6.02 Grievances Concerning a Staff Member’s Work or Career. ... the staff member shall first submit a request for review in writing to his or her Department Head ... Except as provided in Section 6.02.1, the request must be submitted within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later. The Department Head, or his or her designee, shall have 15 days in which to respond in writing to the request for review."
  - "6.02.2 ... the staff member may appeal the decision to the Director of Administration within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later..."
  - "6.03 Grievances Regarding Staff Benefits. ... The request must be submitted within three months after the staff member was informed of the intended application of the benefit. The division chief shall have 15 days to respond in writing."
  - "6.04 Appeal to the Director of Administration. ... the staff member may request in writing a review by the Director of Administration. The written request must be submitted within 30 days after the response ... has been received or the deadline for a response has passed, whichever is earlier."
  - "6.05 Exhaustion of Administrative Review. The channels of administrative review shall be considered exhausted, for purposes of filing a grievance with the Committee, when the staff member has received a response to his or her written request or no response has been received within 15 days of its submission to the Director of Administration."
  - "6.06 Decisions Taken by Managing Director or Director of Administration. With respect to any decision that was taken directly by the Director of Administration or by the Managing Director, or by the Managing Director’s designee, the staff member may file a grievance with the Committee within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later."
  - "6.07 Time Limits. A staff member shall be required to exhaust the applicable channels of administrative review within the required time limits before submitting a grievance to the Grievance Committee."

### Application to the ad hoc discrimination review and Applicant’s arguments
- Applicant’s position (preserved characterization):
  - The ad hoc discrimination review was an informal, one-time, ad hoc procedure intended primarily to provide relief to staff members whose cases fell outside the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee (e.g., as time-barred).
  - Applicant contends the ad hoc discrimination review was alternative, not prerequisite, to Grievance Committee review and that under Article V, Section 3(b) exhaustion was met by the decision of the Director of Administration denying the relief sought.
  - Applicant therefore argues she completed required administrative review under Article V, Section 3 and properly filed her complaint with the Tribunal.
- Fund’s position (preserved characterization):
  - The Fund argued that the Grievance Committee would have had jurisdiction to hear the case because the ad hoc review did not replicate or replace the grievance procedure.
  - The Fund asserted Applicant had not appealed the discriminatory review team decision to the Grievance Committee and therefore had not exhausted all available channels of administrative review under GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Sections 7.08 and 7.09.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings
- Distinction to be made:
  - Between cases falling within the competence of the Grievance Committee and those subject to another review process; exhaustion requirements depend on which category applies.
- Key factual and legal findings:
  - The ad hoc review did not go through the mandatory steps in Sections 6.02, 6.03, 6.04 and 6.05 and could not have done so because the mandatory time periods for each of these steps had expired when the review was undertaken.
  - The ad hoc review involved an outside consultant and an official of the Administrative Department outside the hierarchy constituting the GAO channel of review up to, but not including, the Director of Administration.
  - Because the decision was not a follow-up of the mandatory preceding steps, it should be considered as taken "directly" by the Director of Administration within the meaning of Section 6.06.
  - The memoranda establishing the ad hoc discrimination review procedure emphasized it "was not meant to be in lieu of, and not meant to obviate recourse to, the Grievance Committee" and contrasted the informal ad hoc review with formal established review procedures.
  - The Tribunal found the memoranda could have been more explicit, and the lack of clarity may have led Applicant to conclude Grievance Committee exhaustion was not required; however, the Tribunal held that exhaustion of the remedies provided by the Grievance Committee, where they exist, is statutorily required and the memoranda do not exclude that requirement.
  - The Tribunal noted that recourse to the Grievance Committee would produce a detailed factual and legal record of great assistance to the Administrative Tribunal.
- Decision on admissibility:
  - The Tribunal concluded Applicant has not exhausted the channels of administrative review as required by Article V of the Statute.
  - Resulting disposition:
    - The Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted.
    - The Administrative Tribunal will reconsider the Applicant’s claim on the basis of the Application then before it if the Grievance Committee, if seized, decides that it does not have jurisdiction over that claim.

### Decision (formal)
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides:
  - First, the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted;
  - Second, the Administrative Tribunal will reconsider the Applicant’s claim on the basis of the Application now before it, in the event that the Grievance Committee, if seized, decides that it does not have jurisdiction over that claim.
- Signatories and date (preserved):
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Philine R. Lachman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C.
  - December 18, 1998

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j1998-1.pdf_