## Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — ORDER No. 2015-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — ORDER No. 2015-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2015-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2015-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2015-1.pdf.json)

---

### Background and procedural history
- Applicant: Mr. “KK” (anonymity granted pursuant to Rule XXII for purposes of the Order).
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund.
- Applicant filed an Application with the Administrative Tribunal on September 30, 2015.
- Applicant submitted additional submissions on October 16, 2015 and November 5, 2015.
- Respondent submitted responses on November 2, 2015 and November 12, 2015.
- The Tribunal’s decision was adopted unanimously and signed in Washington, D.C. on November 13, 2015.

### Subject matter of the Application
- The Application challenges Annual Performance Review (APR) decisions for FY2012 and FY2013.
- Applicant sought provisional relief including:
  - (i) an order that “the Fund postpone any decision on redundancy until after judgment is issued in this case”;
  - (ii) that Applicant be “permitted to remain on administrative leave during the pendency of this case to preclude any further issues and concerns such as those raised by the present denial of basic resources, which has wrongfully exacerbated [Applicant’s] medically significant stress”; and
  - Applicant renewed the request on October 16, 2015.
- On November 5, 2015, after receiving notification that his position would be abolished in one month’s time pursuant to GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12, Applicant requested provisional relief to:
  - (1) stay the redundancy decision during the pendency of the case to maintain the status quo ante, to avoid irreparable harm, and to allow the Tribunal to decide and declare on Applicant’s rights without preemptive frustration of any relief that might be awarded;
  - (2) grant paid administrative (or medical) leave to Applicant during the pendency of the case given Applicant’s lack of a work program and poor health; and
  - (3) consider Applicant’s challenge to his post-return experiences and redundancy as part and parcel of Applicant’s pending claims of retaliation and mismanagement.

### Legal framework and Commentary relied upon
- Article VI, Section 4, of the Tribunal’s Statute: “The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.” (Emphasis added.)
- The consolidated Commentary on the Statute (Report of the Executive Board to the Board of Governors on the Establishment of an Administrative Tribunal for the International Monetary Fund (1992) and the Report of the Executive Board to the Board of Governors on Amendments to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal for the International Monetary Fund (2009)):
  - States that the filing of an application does not stay the effectiveness of the decision being challenged, as necessary for efficient operation of the organization.
  - Emphasizes the principle, “strictly applied in the employment context, that an aggrieved employee will not be granted a preliminary injunction unless he would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction,” and notes courts are loath to conclude that an injury would be “irreparable” in the employment context given the possibility of compensatory relief.
  - Adds that the statute “would not preclude the tribunal from ordering such measures if warranted by the circumstances of a particular case.”

### Parties’ positions on provisional relief
- Applicant’s position:
  - Asserts he will suffer “irreparable harm” if provisional relief is not granted.
  - Seeks suspension of the abolition decision, paid administrative or medical leave, and consolidation of post-return and redundancy claims with pending claims of retaliation and mismanagement.
- Respondent’s position:
  - Maintains that the request to suspend the abolition decision is not properly before the Tribunal and that Applicant must first challenge the abolition decision in the Grievance Committee pursuant to GAO No. 31, Rev. 4, Section 7.01.
  - Argues that, even if properly before the Tribunal, Applicant has not shown a sustainable basis for relief and has failed to show “irreparable injury” as referenced in the Commentary on the Statute.

### Tribunal analysis and reasoning
- Statutory rule: Article VI, Section 4, disallows automatic suspension of implementation of the contested decision upon filing an application; however, the statute permits the Tribunal to order interim measures in warranted circumstances.
- Procedural exhaustion requirement: Article V, Section 1, of the Tribunal’s Statute requires exhaustion of all available channels of administrative review when the Fund has established such channels before filing an application with the Tribunal.
  - Commentary, p. 23: exhaustion requirement is standard to allow administration an opportunity to assess complaints and take corrective measures.
- Tribunal findings on Applicant’s requests:
  - The requests do not seek suspension of any decision contested in the Application before the Tribunal:
    - The decision to abolish Applicant’s position was taken after filing of the Application and has not been exhausted through the Fund’s Grievance Committee as required by Article V, Section 1.
    - The request for paid administrative or medical leave does not challenge a decision previously made and exhausted through the Grievance Committee; Applicant does not indicate a denial decision that has been challenged administratively.
    - The request to consolidate post-return experiences and redundancy with pending claims of retaliation and mismanagement likewise does not seek suspension of any decision contested before the Tribunal and raises claims that must first be presented through administrative review channels.
  - Applicant contends the Fund failed to present a rationale separating the abolition decision from his pending claims and that later developments are “inextricably tied up with the facts and issues now to be decided by the Tribunal.”
  - The Tribunal holds that orderly presentation of claims through the Fund’s dispute resolution system and the exhaustion requirement mandate that Applicant first grieve additional claims through administrative channels.

### Order
- For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal denies Applicant’s Requests for Provisional Relief.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2015-1.pdf_