## Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 2023-3 (j2023-3)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 2023-3 (j2023-3)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-3.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-3.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-3.pdf.json)

---

### Procedural overview and parties
- Tribunal composition: Judge Edith Brown Weiss (acting as President for the case), Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda; Registry: Celia Goldman, Registrar.
- Application:
  - Applicant “VV” filed the Application on May 25, 2022; transmitted to Respondent on May 26, 2022.
  - Respondent (International Monetary Fund) filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on June 27, 2022.
  - Applicant filed an Objection on July 29, 2022 and supplemented it on August 8, 2022.
- Representation:
  - Applicant represented by Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek.
  - Respondent represented by Ms. Juliet E. Johnson and Mr. Yongqing Liu.
- Rule applied: Rule XII (Summary Dismissal) pursuant to Article X, Section 2(d) of the Statute — Tribunal may summarily dismiss if application is “clearly inadmissible.” The Tribunal must decide admissibility before merits.

### Applicant’s claims and requested relief
- Allegations:
  - Fund wrongfully failed to seek workers’ compensation on Applicant’s behalf for a debilitating illness allegedly arising from Fund employment.
  - Fund later thwarted Applicant’s attempts to seek such compensation.
  - Fund denied Applicant due process in arbitration concerning the dispute.
- Relief sought:
  - Rescission of the Fund’s decision to reject Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation.
  - Submission of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim for decision by an independent evaluator under the Tribunal’s supervision.
  - One million U.S. dollars (US$1,000,000) in “actual, moral and intangible damages.”
  - Legal fees and costs in accordance with Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute, if Application is well-founded in whole or in part.

### Respondent’s grounds for summary dismissal (admissibility posture)
- Asserted lack of jurisdiction:
  - ratione personæ,
  - ratione temporis,
  - ratione materiæ.

### Applicant’s request for anonymity
- Applicant invoked Rule XXII for anonymity due to centrality of health to the controversy.
- Respondent stated it “would not object to anonymity for Applicant if the Tribunal rejected the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal and proceeded to entertain litigation of Applicant’s claims …” but opposed anonymity for the Judgment addressing a “pure question of law.”
- Tribunal concluded jurisdictional analysis required reference to Applicant’s allegedly disabling health condition and granted anonymity.

---

### Factual background (employment, illness, and claims)
- Employment terms:
  - 2017 appointment as a Short-Term Expert (“STX”) away from Fund Headquarters.
  - Intermittent contractual assignments since 2010; accepted 2017 appointment through the “IMF Expert Portal.”
  - Letter of appointment: appointment governed by terms in the letter and by the Handbook for Short-Term Expert Appointments; where conflict, appointment letter prevails; letter stated it “constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Fund.”
  - Screenshot indicates an “STX Handbook” available to Applicant on the IMF Expert Portal.
- Medical history (Applicant’s allegations and timeline):
  - Alleged severe mosquito bites beginning March 26, 2017 while overseas at Fund-reserved accommodations.
  - Fell ill upon return home on April 7, 2017.
  - Hospitalized beginning April 17, 2017; diagnosed April 18, 2017 with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), said to have arisen from mosquito-borne Zika virus.
  - Hospitalization through July 18, 2018; rehabilitation facility until August 17, 2018.
  - Outpatient therapy through July 2019.
  - Applicant asserts inability to care for himself.

### HR interactions and internal-review timeline
- May 1, 2020: Applicant submitted via “HR Center” a “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage,” stating inability to file earlier due to illness and therapy.
- June 18, 2020: HR Division Chief responded the claim was untimely under the Short-Term Expert Handbook (90-day rule), citing Applicant’s April 18, 2017 diagnosis and concluding claim could not be accepted; no avenue of further recourse stated in that letter.
- August 5, 2020: Local counsel wrote alleging IMF negligence; Fund did not respond.
- December 10, 2020: Current counsel submitted a “Request for Administrative Review (Injury and Disability)” invoking Staff Handbook (Ch. 11.03, Section 4.3.2) and seeking relief including lifting of the HR Division Chief’s block and submission of the WC claim to the Workers’ Compensation Claim Administrator; request also sought mediation for remaining claims.
- February 22, 2021: HRD Director concluded the Request was untimely under STXH and STXH, Section XVI and advised Applicant could file with the Fund’s designated arbitrator within sixty days.

### Arbitration and path to Tribunal
- Applicant filed Request for Arbitration on July 1, 2021 after an agreed extension.
- Arbitrator granted Fund’s Motion to Dismiss on February 25, 2022, finding Applicant failed to request Administrative Review within the applicable 90-day period under STXH, Section XVI; did not reach timeliness of the workers’ compensation claim itself.
- Motion for Reconsideration denied May 19, 2022.
- Applicant filed Application with the Administrative Tribunal on May 25, 2022.
- Application to Tribunal occurred within three months of Arbitrator’s dismissal.

### Parties’ principal contentions on admissibility (summary)
- Applicant:
  - Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione personæ under Article II, Section 1(a) as a “member of the staff” because GAO No. 20 includes “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
  - Alternatively, jurisdiction under Article II, Section 1(b) as “an enrollee in, or beneficiary under, any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer.”
  - Exhausted internal remedies in a timely fashion; Tribunal may review the Arbitration.
- Respondent:
  - Applicant was a contractual employee excluded from Tribunal’s ratione personæ jurisdiction.
  - Applicant failed to timely initiate WC claim and failed to timely exhaust administrative review.
  - Arbitrator’s decision precludes Tribunal review (rationale ratione materiæ).

### Tribunal’s initial admissibility framework
- Rule XII requires an application be “clearly inadmissible” for summary dismissal; high bar to protect right to be heard.
- The Tribunal identified a question of first impression: whether a contractual employee alleging denial of a workers’ compensation claim falls within Tribunal jurisdiction ratione personæ.

---

### Jurisdiction ratione personæ — Section 1(b) and workers’ compensation as Fund internal law
- Textual and interpretive findings:
  - Article II, Section 1(b) extends to “any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer”; plain language does not exclude non-staff member employees from raising challenges concerning such plans.
  - The Commentary on the Statute explicitly contemplates that individuals who are not members of the staff but have rights under benefit plans may bring claims to the Tribunal.
  - Tribunal jurisprudence has exercised jurisdiction over non-staff applicants (e.g., Executive Directors) challenging decisions concerning or arising under the Staff Retirement Plan.
- Legislative history and legal effect:
  - The legislative history limited Section 1(a) to “members of the staff” because contractual-employee disputes were expected to involve individualized contract interpretation; that rationale does not apply to Section 1(b), which addresses generally applicable Fund internal law.
  - Workers’ compensation rights are not individualized contract terms but inhere in the Fund’s internal law (GAO No. 20).
  - Applicant’s letter of appointment incorporated the STXH, which incorporates GAO No. 20; GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 2.01.1 applies since 1982 to “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
- Channeling and institutional structure:
  - GAO No. 20 channels WC disputes through the Fund’s internal dispute resolution system (Claim Administrator → Grievance Committee → Managing Director recommendation → Tribunal).
  - Staff Handbook, Ch. 11.03, Section 5.6.1 confirms the Grievance Committee’s competence to review grievances by “any enrollee in a benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer.”
- Tribunal conclusion on ratione personæ:
  - The plain text of Article II, Section 1(b), the Commentary, the legislative history, GAO No. 20, and the Fund’s dispute-resolution architecture lead the Tribunal to conclude Respondent has not shown the Application is “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ.
  - The Tribunal rejects Respondent’s argument that the Statute’s reach is limited by Management’s provision of arbitration to contractual employees.

---

### Jurisdiction ratione temporis — timeliness and exhaustion of administrative review
- Timeliness of the workers’ compensation claim:
  - The Tribunal considered Respondent’s contention that Applicant did not file a timely WC claim to be a merits issue requiring factual development; the Tribunal did not decide timeliness on the Motion for Summary Dismissal and left the defense open to Respondent in its Answer.
- Exhaustion of administrative review:
  - Statutory provisions:
    - Article V, Section 1: application to Tribunal permitted only after exhaustion of all available channels of administrative review where the Fund has established such channels.
    - Article VI, Section 1: application must be filed within three months after exhaustion of available channels of administrative review, or otherwise after notification of the decision.
  - Record and Tribunal findings:
    - Applicant submitted a May 1, 2020 email to the HR Center; HR Division Chief’s June 18, 2020 reply rejected the claim as untimely under STXH but did not identify further recourse.
    - Applicant’s August 5, 2020 counsel letter elicited no response from the Fund.
    - The HRD Director later reviewed the December 10, 2020 Request and deemed it untimely while preserving the Fund’s right to contest jurisdiction on timeliness in arbitration or other proceedings.
    - The Tribunal expressed concern that the Fund’s communications at intermediate junctures failed to alert Applicant to available recourse, creating potential procedural uncertainty.
    - Applicant filed with the Fund’s arbitrator and then came to the Tribunal within three months of the Arbitrator’s dismissal.
  - Tribunal conclusion on ratione temporis at summary-dismissal stage:
    - Given the record and the Fund’s own view of applicable review channels, Respondent did not meet the high threshold under Rule XII to show the Application is “clearly inadmissible” for failure to have exhausted available channels of administrative review in a timely manner.

### Jurisdiction ratione materiæ — effect of the Arbitrator’s decision
- Arbitrator’s decision limited to whether Applicant submitted a timely request for review to the HRD Director.
- Tribunal concluded the Arbitrator’s limited dismissal does not preclude the Tribunal’s consideration of the Application in the circumstances presented.

---

### Tribunal’s dispositive findings and orders
- Standard applied: high bar of Rule XII to find an Application “clearly inadmissible.”
- Findings:
  - Respondent failed to demonstrate the Application is “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ under Article II, Section 1.
  - Respondent failed to demonstrate the Application is “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis at the summary-dismissal stage.
  - The Arbitrator’s limited decision does not preclude Tribunal consideration (rationale ratione materiæ).
- Orders and procedural consequences:
  - The Motion for Summary Dismissal is denied.
  - Pleadings on the merits shall resume (Respondent’s Answer, Applicant’s Reply, Respondent’s Rejoinder) according to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, since the Motion had suspended pleading deadlines.
- Decision text (unanimous): The Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application of “VV” is denied, and the pleadings on the merits shall resume.
- Signatories and date:
  - Edith Brown Weiss, President
  - Maria Vicien Milburn, Judge
  - Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., March 30, 2023

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2023-3 (March 30, 2023).*

### INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................

### INTRODUCTION

### Procedural overview
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (“Tribunal”), composed pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute of Judge Edith Brown Weiss (acting as President for the case), and Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, decided the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application brought by “VV”, a former contractual employee of the Fund.
- Applicant filed the Application on May 25, 2022; it was transmitted to Respondent on May 26, 2022.
- Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on June 27, 2022. Applicant filed an Objection on July 29, 2022 and supplemented it on August 8, 2022.
- A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period for answering the Application until the Tribunal decides the Motion; the case at this stage is limited to admissibility.

### Parties and representation
- Applicant “VV” was represented by Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek, Law Offices of Peter C. Hansen, LLC.
- Respondent (International Monetary Fund) was represented by Ms. Juliet E. Johnson, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Yongqing Liu, Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department.

### Applicant’s claims and requested relief
- Applicant alleges:
  - The Fund wrongfully failed to seek workers’ compensation on his behalf when he suffered a debilitating illness allegedly arising from Fund employment.
  - The Fund later thwarted efforts by Applicant to seek such compensation.
  - The Fund denied him due process in an arbitration proceeding concerning the dispute.
- Applicant seeks:
  - Rescission of the Fund’s decision to reject Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation;
  - Submission of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim for decision by an independent evaluator, under the Tribunal’s supervision;
  - One million U.S. dollars in “actual, moral and intangible damages”;
  - Legal fees and costs in accordance with Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute, if the Application is well-founded in whole or in part.

### Respondent’s procedural posture
- Respondent moved for summary dismissal on grounds that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction:
  - ratione personæ,
  - ratione temporis,
  - and ratione materiæ.

### Motion and admissibility framework
- Rule XII (Summary Dismissal) permits the Tribunal, pursuant to Article X, Section 2(d) of the Statute, to summarily dismiss an application if it is “clearly inadmissible.”
- The Tribunal must determine admissibility before addressing the merits.

---

### Applicant’s request for anonymity
- Applicant requested anonymity under Rule XXII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which permits anonymity where “good cause” is shown to protect an individual’s privacy.
- Tribunal jurisprudence supports anonymity when an applicant’s health is central to the controversy (e.g., IMFAT Judgment No. 2019-1, para. 21; IMFAT Judgment No. 2007-6, para. 7).
- Respondent stated it “would not object to anonymity for Applicant if the Tribunal rejected the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal and proceeded to entertain litigation of Applicant’s claims that have a genesis in his illness,” but opposed anonymity for the Judgment on the Motion as “focused on a pure question of law.”
- The Tribunal concluded that jurisdictional questions could not be analyzed without reference to Applicant’s allegedly disabling health condition and granted anonymity.

### FACTUAL BACKGROUND

### Employment and contract terms
- In 2017, Applicant was employed as a contractual employee of the Fund as a Short-Term Expert (“STX”), in a location away from Fund Headquarters (“HQ”).
- Applicant had worked for the Fund on intermittent contractual assignments since 2010.
- Applicant accepted his 2017 appointment through the “IMF Expert Portal.”
- The letter of appointment stated in part: “In the performance of your duties, you will be responsible to, and under the sole direction of the Fund and will report to the . . . Department.”
- The letter of appointment further provided:
  - “Your appointment will be governed by the terms and conditions specified in this letter and by the administrative procedures, rules, benefits, and services generally applicable or available to Short-Term Experts in the Fund, as described in the Handbook for Short-Term Expert Appointments. In the event of a conflict between this appointment letter and the Handbook, the appointment letter will prevail.”
  - “This letter of appointment, including any documents incorporated by reference herein, constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Fund. . . .”
- A screenshot indicates an “STX Handbook” was among the documents available to Applicant on the IMF Expert Portal.

### Illness and medical history (Applicant’s allegations)
- Beginning March 26, 2017, while overseas on his STX assignment and staying at Fund-reserved accommodations, Applicant alleges he was severely bitten by mosquitoes.
- Applicant alleges he fell ill upon return home on April 7, 2017.
- Beginning April 17, 2017, Applicant was hospitalized; on April 18, 2017 he was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), said to have arisen from mosquito-borne Zika virus.
- Hospitalization, including intensive care, continued through July 18, 2018, when Applicant was released from an acute care hospital and entered a rehabilitation facility until August 17, 2018.
- Applicant engaged in outpatient therapy through July 2019.
- Applicant asserts his health condition has left him unable to care for himself.

### PROCEDURAL HISTORY (detailed interactions with HRD)

### Initial claim and HRD Division Chief response
- On May 1, 2020, Applicant submitted via the Fund’s “HR Center” mailbox a “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage.”
- Applicant stated: “Only now am I able to make this claim. I was not physically or mentally able to do so before due to medications, involvement in daily therapy routines and lethargy brought on by depression and mental anguish. In addition[,] I had to meet with my family in order to ascertain the proper chronological order of facts presented herein.”
- Applicant asserted: “My claim is justified. IMF should make things right for me, as I am no longer capable, because of the details described above, of continuing to work outside my home.”
- On June 18, 2020, a Division Chief in HRD responded:
  - “We regret that you have experienced these health issues over the last three years. Unfortunately, your claim is untimely under the terms of your short-term contract with the IMF. Under the terms of your short-term expert contract, the terms and conditions of your employment are governed by the IMF’s Short-Term Expert Handbook. In that Handbook, it states that:
    - If you consider that the Fund has failed to meet any of its obligations to you under your employment contract, you may submit a written complaint to the Director of Human Resources stating the grounds of your complaint and the remedy you seek. This written complaint must be submitted to the Director of Human Resources no later than 90 days after the date you learned or could reasonably have learned of the alleged breach of the Fund’s obligations.
    - According to your letter, you were officially diagnosed with Guillain-Barre on April 18, 2017. Therefore, you needed to submit your written complaint to the Director of HRD by no later than July 18, 2017. As it is now almost three years beyond that date, I regret that the IMF cannot accept your claim for processing.”
  - The Division Chief added: “We understand that this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but we wish you continued recovery.”
  - No avenue of further recourse was stated in that response.

### Follow-up by local counsel and HRD non-response
- On August 5, 2020, Applicant’s local counsel (retained “to pursue civil damages against IMF”) wrote to the same HR Division Chief asserting:
  - “[Applicant] has lost the use and enjoyment of the last 3 years of his life and will most likely be physically impaired for the remainder of his life. This loss is the direct result of IMF’s negligence or willful disregard of [Applicant’s] safety.”
  - The letter alleged Applicant had been unable to make the claim within the 90-day period “due to his mental and physical impairment . . . the same impairment or disability that IMF caused.”
- Respondent states it did not respond to the August 5, 2020 letter.

### Request for Administrative Review and HRD Director’s Review Decision
- On December 10, 2020, Applicant, via current counsel, submitted to the HRD Director a “Request for Administrative Review (Injury and Disability)” (“Request”).
- The Request invoked Staff Handbook (Ch. 11.03, Section 4.3.2) governing administrative review of a “decision concerning a staff member’s work or career,” which must be requested “within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member, whichever is later.”
- The Request sought administrative review of HRD’s denial on June 18, 2020 of Applicant’s request for compensation for GBS allegedly suffered in service to the Fund and incapacitating Applicant from 2017 until mid-2020, when he filed a claim for workers’ compensation (“WC”).
- The Request stated: “If the HRD Director were to affirm the threshold dismissal [by the HR Division Chief] of [Applicant’s] request, and thus create a dispute, the next step would be arbitration per Article XVI of the Short-Term Expert Handbook (‘STEH’) . . . , and perhaps also before the Tribunal . . . to resolve preliminary issues.”
- The Request asserted the HR Division Chief “blocked the processing of [Applicant’s] WC claim, which is the primary vehicle for [Applicant’s] request for compensation”; the HR Division Chief “fail[ed] to notice that [Applicant] had not approached the HRD Director about a dispute, but had instead filed a standard WC claim with HRD’s claims section.”
- By his Request Applicant sought “. . . relief in the form of a lifting of [the HRD Division Chief’s] block, and the submission of his WC claim to [the Workers’ Compensation Claim Administrator] for processing on the merits.”
- Applicant also requested “that the Fund agree to submit his remaining claims to mediation, with notice of these claims – including, without limitation, claims for compensation for injuries sustained, moral and intangible damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.”
- On February 22, 2021, the HRD Director responded, concluding Applicant’s Request was untimely “given the terms of Applicant’s employment with the Fund.” The HRD Director cited Section XVI (Settlement of Disputes) of the Short-Term Experts Handbook (“STXH”), and quoted STXH, Section XVI, including:
  - “If you consider that the Fund has failed to meet any of its obligations to you under your employment contract, you may submit a written complaint to the Director of Human Resources stating the grounds of your complaint and the remedy you seek. This written complaint must be submitted to the Director of Human Resources no later than 90 days after the date you learned or could reasonably have learned of the alleged breach of the Fund’s obligations. If your complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction by the Director of Human Resources within 30 days after you submitted your complaint, you may appeal the matter to arbitration by submitting your written complaint and a copy of the response of the Director of Human Resources, if any, to the Fund’s designated arbitrator at the address shown . . . below. The written complaint must be received by the arbitrator no later than 60 days after the response from the Director of Human Resources has been received or the deadline for a response has passed, whichever is earlier.”

### SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S REVIEW FRAMEWORK (as introduced)
- The Tribunal’s admissibility analysis will consider:
  - Whether the Application is “clearly inadmissible” under Rule XII,
  - Jurisdiction ratione personæ in terms of Article II, Section 1 of the Statute,
  - Jurisdiction ratione temporis for timely exhaustion of administrative review channels,
  - Jurisdiction ratione materiæ concerning whether the decision of the Fund’s Arbitrator precludes the Tribunal’s consideration of the Application.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2023-3.*

### 25. On  the  basis  of STXH, Section  XVI, the  HRD  Director determined that Applicant’s

### j2023-3 - 25. On the basis of STXH, Section XVI, the HRD Director determined that Applicant’s

### Timeliness and administrative-review findings
- HRD Director determined Request for review of the HR Division Chief’s June 18, 2020, decision was required to have been filed within 90 days, that is, by September 16, 2020: “Your December 10, 2020 request was filed well outside of this time period and is accordingly untimely.”
- HRD Director nonetheless considered the Request with proviso: “[T]his does not constitute a waiver of the time limit specified in Section XVI [of the STXH]. The Fund reserves its right to contest jurisdiction on grounds of timeliness in any arbitration or other proceedings.”
- HRD Director’s Review Decision concluded Applicant’s May 1, 2020 “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage” had been submitted “. . . long after the time permitted by the terms of your contract.”
- By terms of Section XVI, a general claim must be submitted no later than 90 days after “you learned or could reasonably have learned of the alleged breach of the Fund’s obligations”; by terms of Section VII, a Worker’s Compensation claim is required within 30 days of the “onset of illness.”
- HRD Director quoted STXH, Section VII (Workers’ Compensation Program) instruction: “Claims should be filed within 30 days of the accident or onset of the illness and must be accompanied by a report from the expert’s physician providing a full diagnosis, an account of the treatment given, and an explanation of the extent of the expert’s illness or injury and how it occurred.”
- Review Decision stated: “Section VII (Workers’ Compensation Program) of the Short-Term Experts Handbook refers to the Fund’s workers compensation policy, which is set out in Staff Handbook, Chapter, 8.01, Section 4.”
- Review Decision concluded Applicant failed to demonstrate any “special and unusual circumstances that would justify a waiver of applicable time limits and permit consideration of a claim that was submitted some three years after the time limits specified in [Applicant’s] contract expired.”
- Review Decision advised Applicant that, if he wished to pursue the matter further, he “may do so by filing a written complaint with the Fund’s designated arbitrator . . . within sixty days of [Applicant’s] receipt of this memorandum.”

### Arbitration proceedings and procedural history
- Applicant filed Request for Arbitration on July 1, 2021, following an extension of time agreed by the Fund.
- Fund filed a Motion to Dismiss the Arbitration; parties exchanged further submissions.
- Arbitrator issued Decision on February 25, 2022, granting the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss on basis Applicant failed to request Administrative Review of the HR Division Chief’s decision “within the applicable 90-day time period.”
- Arbitrator held that because Applicant was not a staff member but a contractual employee (STX), the six-month period in the Staff Handbook did not apply and STX Handbook, Section XVI, governed; Arbitrator concluded no exceptional circumstances excused the more-than-90-day delay.
- Arbitrator’s Decision did not reach whether Applicant had submitted a timely workers’ compensation claim.
- Applicant submitted Motion for Reconsideration on March 23, 2022; Fund replied on April 22, 2022; Arbitrator denied reconsideration on May 19, 2022.
- Applicant filed his Application with the Administrative Tribunal on May 25, 2022.

### Parties’ principal contentions (summarized)
- Applicant’s contentions on the merits:
  - Applicant suffered a debilitating illness in the course of his Fund employment and complied with the Fund’s requirements for seeking workers’ compensation; Fund was aware but failed to seek workers’ compensation on his behalf.
  - Fund wrongfully rejected Applicant’s presentation of his workers’ compensation claim, treating it as litigation and failing to process his request for relief.
  - Fund’s Arbitration was not consistent with due process, ignored American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rules, and was conducted in a biased and abusive manner.
  - Relief sought by Applicant:
    - rescission of the Fund’s decision to reject Applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation;
    - submission of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim to an independent, mutually acceptable and fully qualified evaluator versed in District of Columbia law, briefed on Fund workers’ compensation standards by the Tribunal, and engaged, paid, supervised and evaluated by the Tribunal (with reimbursement by the Fund), this expert being free to decide on Applicant’s eligibility for workers’ compensation (including any disability pension for which he is eligible) subject only to the Tribunal’s evaluation, and without prior constraint save for the stipulations that his claim is timely and retroactive to April 18, 2017, and that his condition and course of health to date shall not in any way reduce any award of workers’ compensation, although it may increase an otherwise due amount;
    - one million U.S. dollars (US$1,000,000) in actual, moral and intangible damages;
    - reimbursement of all fees and costs incurred by Applicant in seeking to claim and vindicate his right to workers’ compensation.
- Respondent’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione personæ because Applicant was a contractual employee and not a staff member; contractual employees and technical assistance experts are intentionally excluded from Tribunal’s jurisdiction under its Statute.
  - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis because Applicant failed (i) to launch a timely request for workers’ compensation, and (ii) to exhaust all available channels of administrative review in a timely manner.
  - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiæ to review the decision of the Fund’s Arbitrator.
- Applicant’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione personæ as a “member of the staff,” pursuant to Article II, Section 1(a), because Fund’s workers’ compensation policy (GAO No. 20) confers “staff” status on Applicant for workers’ compensation purposes.
  - Alternatively, Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione personæ pursuant to Article II, Section 1(b), as an “enrollee in, or beneficiary under, any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer challenging the legality of an administrative act concerning or arising under any such plan which adversely affects the applicant.”
  - Legislative history of the Statute supports Applicant’s interpretation; workers’ compensation program is not an STX-specific “contract term.”
  - Applicant sought workers’ compensation benefits and exhausted internal remedies in a timely fashion.
  - Tribunal is competent to judge the Arbitration and to award relief; Applicant is not bound by the Arbitration decision.

### Admissibility standard and Tribunal’s initial jurisdictional analysis
- Summary-dismissal threshold: Rule XII requires application be “clearly inadmissible” to be summarily dismissed; Rule XII sets a high bar to protect applicants’ right to be heard and to avoid premature dismissal (citing Mr. “QQ”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1, paras. 45–48).
- Respondent’s asserted grounds for summary dismissal:
  - lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ under Article II, Section 1 (contractual employee not “member of the staff”);
  - lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis (untimely workers’ compensation claim and untimely administrative review exhaustion);
  - lack of jurisdiction ratione materiæ because Arbitrator’s decision precludes Tribunal consideration.
- Question of first impression identified: Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction ratione personæ over a contractual employee alleging denial of a claim for workers’ compensation?
- Text of Article II, Section 1 presented exactly:
  - 1(a) jurisdiction for “a member of the staff challenging the legality of an administrative act adversely affecting him”;
  - 1(b) jurisdiction for “an enrollee in, or beneficiary under, any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer challenging the legality of an administrative act concerning or arising under any such plan which adversely affects the applicant.”
- Applicant invokes both prongs:
  - As Section 1(a) “member of the staff” based on GAO No. 20 inclusion of “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
  - As Section 1(b) “enrollee in, or beneficiary under” a Fund benefit plan for workers’ compensation purposes.
- Respondent’s argument summarized:
  - Statute “has intentionally excluded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personæ over contractual employees” who have an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism (contractual arbitration); exclusion is asserted to be without distinction as to subject matter.
- Tribunal’s preliminary conclusion for purpose of the Motion for Summary Dismissal:
  - Tribunal does not accept Respondent’s proposition that Section 1(a) circumscribes the reach of Section 1(b) so as to render the Application “clearly inadmissible” under Rule XII, in the context of a contractual employee alleging denial of a workers’ compensation claim.
  - Two principal reasons given: (1) the plain language of Article II, Section 1(b) does not exclude non-staff member employees such as Applicant; (2) the Statute’s legislative history does not support exclusion of Applicant from Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article II.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (judgment record and related submissions as summarized).*

### Section 1(b), given that the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy is not an individual contract

### Section 1(b), given that the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy is not an individual contract

### Plain language of Article II, Section 1(b) — scope of ratione personæ
- The Tribunal finds that the plain language of Article II, Section 1(b), does not exclude non-staff member employees from invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personæ to challenge administrative acts concerning or arising under Fund benefit plans.
- Key textual points:
  - Section 1(b) extends to “any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer.” (Emphasis added.)
  - Section 1(b) “anticipates that non-staff member employees may be enrollees in Fund benefit plans” and does not exclude their access to the Tribunal to bring challenges related to those plans.
- Respondent’s argument:
  - Respondent contends non-staff member employees fall outside Tribunal jurisdiction where the Fund has supplied an alternative mechanism for resolution of their employment disputes generally, asserting Section 1(b) was only intended to open the Tribunal’s door to individuals “who do not have a direct contractual relationship with the Fund that provides for arbitration of all disputes.”
- Tribunal response:
  - The Tribunal concludes Respondent’s argument would create an unwritten exception to the plain language of Article II, Section 1(b), based on Management’s decision to afford arbitral dispute resolution to contractual employees — an exception that cannot alter the express content of Section 1(b).
  - Only the Board of Governors can amend the Statute. (Statute, Article XIX.)

### Statutory commentary and precedent supporting inclusion of non-staff enrollees
- The Commentary on the Statute (p. 13) states: “This provision would allow individuals who are not members of the staff but who have rights under these plans to bring claims before the tribunal concerning decisions taken under or with respect to the plan.” (Emphasis added.)
- Examples cited in the Commentary include beneficiaries under the SRP and nonstaff enrollees in the MBP.
- Tribunal jurisprudence demonstrates jurisdiction has been exercised over non-staff applicants (e.g., IMF Executive Directors) challenging decisions concerning or arising under the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) — see IMFAT Judgment Nos. 2016-4 and 2016-1 referenced in the text.

### Legislative history and distinction between individual contract terms and Fund internal law
- Legislative history rationale:
  - The Statute’s legislative history limited Section 1(a) ratione personæ to “members of the staff” because disputes of contractual employees were expected to involve interpretation of individual contract terms, whereas staff disputes would involve interpretation of the law of the Fund.
- Tribunal’s clarification:
  - That rationale for Section 1(a) does not apply to Section 1(b) because employment benefit plans “will necessarily be anchored in the Fund’s internal law rather than represent an individualized term of employment.”
- Specific finding for workers’ compensation:
  - Applicant’s right to seek workers’ compensation is “not an individually-bargained-for term of his contract but inheres instead in the Fund’s internal law (GAO No. 20).”
  - Applicant’s letter of appointment incorporated the Handbook for Short-Term Expert Appointments (“STXH”), which in turn incorporated GAO No. 20; the HRD Director referenced this incorporation when denying administrative review.
  - GAO No. 20, Rev. 3, Section 2.01.1 provides since 1982 that it applies to “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
- Legal effect:
  - The STXH and the letter of appointment “only notified Applicant of his statutory right”; applicability derives from the objective existence of Fund rules as part of the Fund’s legal system, not from individualized contract bargaining.

### Nature of workers’ compensation and channeling to Fund dispute resolution
- Historical and structural points:
  - The Fund has provided workers’ compensation since at least 1950; in 1982 GAO No. 20 was substantially refashioned to provide access to a Claim Administrator and recourse through the Fund’s internal dispute resolution system rather than external insurer settlement and host-jurisdiction agencies and courts.
  - GAO No. 20, Revision 3 (1982) remains in force.
- GAO No. 20 text on appeals:
  - Section 10.02 (Right of Appeal): “A staff member may appeal the Claim Administrator’s finding to the Grievance Committee under the procedures set forth in subsection 4.01 of General Administrative Order No. 31, Rev. 1. The normal procedures of the Grievance Committee shall apply.”
  - “Staff member” for GAO No. 20 is defined at Section 2.02.1 as “any person employed by the Fund on a regular, fixed-term, temporary, consultant, or technical assistance expert appointment.”
  - GAO No. 20 does not distinguish among the various categories of Fund employees eligible for workers’ compensation coverage when channeling disputes to the Grievance Committee.
- Grievance Committee and final review:
  - Staff Handbook, Ch. 11.03, Section 5.6.1 provides the Grievance Committee is competent to review grievances by “any enrollee in a benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer, with respect to decisions arising under any such plan.”
  - The Fund’s dispute resolution structure channels grievances heard first by the Grievance Committee to final resolution by the Tribunal following a decision of the Managing Director in response to the Committee’s recommendation (Staff Handbook, Ch. 11.03, Section 5.21; Tribunal Statute, Article V, Section 2).
- Implication:
  - Channeling workers’ compensation disputes through the formal internal dispute resolution system promotes uniform interpretation of a generally applicable law of the Fund and is consonant with the Statute’s legislative history that controversies concerning generally applicable rules will be given final resolution by the Tribunal.

### Tribunal’s conclusions on Respondent’s ratione personæ challenge
- Conclusion summary:
  - Given the Statute’s text and the character of the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy, the Tribunal does not accept Respondent’s proposition that Article II, Section 1(a) circumscribes Section 1(b) so as to exclude contractual employees from access to the Tribunal ratione personæ without regard to subject matter.
  - The Tribunal concludes Respondent has not shown the Application is “clearly inadmissible” (Rule XII) for lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ under Article II, Section 1 of the Statute.

### Procedural note — forthcoming consideration of ratione temporis
- The Tribunal proceeds to consider Respondent’s contention that the Application should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis on the grounds that Applicant failed (i) to launch a timely request for workers’ compensation, and (ii) to exhaust all available channels of administrative review in a timely manner.

*Source: j2023-3 - Section 1(b), given that the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy is not an individual contract*

### 68. As to the first contention, that Applicant allegedly did not make a timely claim for workers’

### j2023-3 - 68. As to the first contention, that Applicant allegedly did not make a timely claim for workers’

### Timeliness of Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim
- The Tribunal treated Respondent’s contention that Applicant did not make a timely claim for workers’ compensation as a merits issue requiring fact-based inquiry that the parties have not yet fully developed on the record; accordingly, the Tribunal did not decide timeliness in the Judgment on the Motion for Summary Dismissal.
- The Tribunal left open to Respondent the ability to raise the timeliness defense in its Answer on the merits.

### Exhaustion of administrative review (jurisdiction ratione temporis)
- Article V, Section 1 of the Statute: “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.”
- Article VI, Section 1 of the Statute: requires filing of an application within 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.”
- The Tribunal recognized its jurisprudence emphasizing the importance of timely exhaustion of review channels.
- Applicant’s position: he “acted in a timely fashion while exhausting all internal remedies, including . . . arbitration,” and he came to the Tribunal within three months of the Arbitrator’s dismissal of his complaint.
- The Tribunal found:
  - GAO No. 20 channels workers’ compensation disputes through the Fund’s formal dispute resolution system.
  - Respondent has not shown the Application is “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ under Article II, Section 1.
  - Given the Fund itself took a view as to which review channels would apply that differs from the Tribunal’s approach in this Judgment, the Tribunal does not find the Application “clearly inadmissible” for failure to have timely exhausted all available channels of administrative review.
- Record evidence of procedural uncertainty:
  - Applicant submitted to the Fund’s “HR Center” email mailbox on May 1, 2020, seeking to raise a claim concerning an illness or injury allegedly arising from his Fund employment.
  - HR Division Chief’s letter of June 18, 2020, rejected Applicant’s May 1, 2020, “Claim for Loss of Compensation, Future Lost Compensation, Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, Medical Bills Unpaid and Future Medical and Therapy Costs and Living Wage,” and stated: “We understand that this is not the outcome you were hoping for, but we wish you continued recovery.”
  - Applicant followed up on August 5, 2020, via local counsel “to pursue civil damages against IMF”; the Fund did not respond.
  - The Tribunal expressed concern that at those two junctures the Fund failed to advise Applicant that further recourse was open, potentially giving the impression that he had “reached the end of the road.” The Tribunal cited Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 128, for comparable concerns.
- The Fund later directed Applicant to pursue Arbitration after Applicant engaged current counsel who made a Request for Administrative Review to the HRD Director.
- The Application with the Tribunal was filed within three months of the decision of the Arbitrator granting the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss.

### Arbitration decision and jurisdiction ratione materiæ
- Respondent’s assertion: the decision of the Fund’s Arbitrator precludes the Tribunal’s consideration of the Application and thus deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction ratione materiæ; Respondent contended the Tribunal does not act as an appellate body over the Arbitrator and that Tribunal and Arbitration are parallel systems for distinct employee categories.
- The Arbitrator’s decision in the matter was limited to whether Applicant had submitted a timely request for review to the HRD Director.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Arbitrator’s limited decision does not preclude the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case.

### Conclusions and orders
- The Tribunal applied Rule XII protections guarding applicants against having their right to be heard cut off prematurely and against the risk of erroneous admissibility decisions when pleadings are not fully developed.
- The Tribunal concluded Respondent failed to meet the high bar of showing the Application is “clearly inadmissible” in terms of Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- The Motion for Summary Dismissal is denied.
- Because filing of the Motion suspended pleadings on the merits, the Fund’s Answer, Applicant’s Reply, and the Fund’s Rejoinder shall now follow according to the schedule prescribed by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- Decision text (unanimous): The Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application of “VV” is denied, and the pleadings on the merits shall resume.
- Signatories and date:
  - Edith Brown Weiss, President
  - Maria Vicien Milburn, Judge
  - Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C.
  - March 30, 2023

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-3.pdf_