Executive Summary of Du berg v UNESCO

            To accomplish the authorized mandate as well as the lawful pledge, every single body within a community have to be regulated definitely. Labelling a lawful position for any person defines as giving that person for the personality lawful privileges along with the responsibilities. Every single perform establishes its legal obligation. For that reason, being in charge could be described as creating the wrecked part of the law to be reestablished. However, the rule of an internationally lawful person is seemed to be still distance from accomplishment. Whereas the argument which may ascend as of the lawful position is actually extremely established. As a result from this, there is the appearance of struggle in performing the application of safeguarding the law itself.

                  A research presents that the international public has in general acknowledged and accepted for the form of an international organization as an internationally lawful individual. There are a number of measures in defining a legal position of an international organization. Even though the objective of the institution shapes embraces an important obligation, for both openly or covertly. However, there is still fact around the deficiency of an international law which able to systematically grasp the range of international organization. Also, there is still deficiency of courts organization which able to grasp the entire intricacy of the international organization queries. A case study of Duberg v UNESCO presents for an incomplete and restricted Court’s authority. It also bounds the rights and privileges of the labor as well (Gulati, 2018).  The case has presented for how the real function of International law to protect the international labor.

Background of the dispute of Duberg and UNESCO

            The dispute was between Duberg and UNESCO regarding the labor related problems. Basically, the dispute was started when the president of US initiated procedure and machinery for the purpose to conduct an investigation in the country to find out the employees and future employees (selected by the United Nation) involved in the subversive activities. The investigation was started after the issue of staff circular (that was issued by the bureau head) (lawin.org, 2019). In this investigation, investigators wrote instruction for all staff members on a single circular. In this circular, they stated that employees are required to fulfill the given form to support the investigation process. Peter Duberg who was working in UNESCO as a local worker denied to follow up these orders (Lauterpacht, 1988). Peter Duberg presented this loyalty form in the embassy of Paris (in front of the board). UNESCO disqualified him from his position. Moreover, the director general of UNESCO rejected the idea to provide a renew employment contract. Thus, considering this situation Duberg selected the second option to go to the UNESCO appeal board. Appeal board supported him and took the analysis of the whole situation. Board concluded that Duberg should be rehired in UNESCO as a loyal employee of UNESCO. (Lauterpacht, 1988)Somehow, the Director General was not ready to accept this option. Rejection from director general encouraged Duberg to submit his appeal in front of the tribunal administrative of an International labor organization (ILO) (lawin.org, 2019).    

Brief facts of the case of Duberg and UNESCO

Facts associated with this case are enlisted below with brief detail.

1)  In the defendant organization job (employment of Peter Duberg) complainant was started in June 1949.

2)   fixed term contract having the during of legal use was total 1 year was the available legal contract to the Peter Duberg (complainant) (lawin.org, 2019)

3)Loyalty questionnaire was distributed by UNESCO and US defendant organization in 1953. Thus in 1953, Peter Duberg refused to fulfill the requirements of loyalty program presented by UNESCO. According to the given instructions to him, the complainant had to submit that loyalty questionnaire to the UNESCO Company in the application of Executive Order No. 10 422. President of the US was personally (officially) working on this employee’s loyalty investigation program (lawin.org, 2019).

4)During next year (prior to completion of one business year) (in 1954) Peter Duberg received a form of interrogation from the employee's loyalty board (under order no 10.459) that was again refused and ignored by the Peter Duberg (lawin.org, 2019).

5)  In 1954 June, he received an invitation to stand in front of Loyalty Board in Paris embassy. Peter Duberg presented his loyalty program questionnaire in front of the Board for his requirement of rehire (lawin.org, 2019).

6)  In July (next month) he (Peter Duberg) was told about the decision taken by the Board regarding rehire option and other employment contracts of Peter Duberg in the company. Here Peter Duberg was also given the key reasons behind the decision. 

7) In August 1954, Board and Director General of the company wrote to him that on completion of this contract he would not be awarded next one year contract (lawin.org, 2019).  

8)      In August 1954, Peter Duberg wrote a request letter for the consideration of future rehire in the company to the Director General of the company.

9)  After his appeal to the appeals board Chief of the Bureau of Personnel and Management informed Peter Duberg in a letter regarding the response for his rehire option (lawin.org, 2019).

10)  Loyalty board wrote a letter to the Director General to explain how Peter Duberg fulfills the requirements of the loyalty program and how there should be given one legal opportunity for this rehire to the complainant. In the letter, detailed information was shared to the concerning loyalty program and rehire of employees in the company (lawin.org, 2019).

11)     On the start of September 1954, an employee loyalty program related details were presented by UNESCO (lawin.org, 2019).

12)  On 1954-5, all these responses concerning with the interest of this contract were made possible in this year to the Peter Duberg.

13)  Directors refused the idea of rehire in next future contracts in September 1954.

14)   The social advisory board was handed over this case for further analysis and investigations.

15)  Peter Duberg presented his views in front of the special advisory board that resulted in the increase of knowledge for Directors and other administration of the company regarding the loyalty of Peter Duberg in the employee (lawin.org, 2019).

            The facts presented here explain the whole situation. How and what roles were played by Peter Duberg and directors committee of this company (lawin.org, 2019). Facts also cover information about actions taken by other legal and business entities involved in this business case. Peter Duberg as an employee could save time spent on all these activities and appeals by full filing the basic requirements of the loyalty test.          

The legal issues presented of Duberg and UNESCO

            There are a number of legal issues presented in this case. At first, signing a contract for the one year bound period is also a legal issue that relates to this case study. Defendant Company and complainant both were agreed on this legal agreement to work for one year as a loyal employee of the company (lawin.org, 2019). Being an employee in an organization as itself a number of legal issues. For instance, employees are required to follow up with the policies of employer companies. Rejecting corporate strategy of a company can cause legal issues for the employee as he was not given the second option for change to get better result outcomes (lawin.org, 2019). Moreover, all documentation was made in the professional and official manner that also indicate the legal concerns of this case study. Involvement of international labor organization and international labor laws are also related to the legal issues that were raised by the complainant after involving other legal entities in his case for fair justice. In short, the whole case involves different legal concerns at a different extent in the case (lawin.org, 2019; Lauterpacht, 1988).

The individual parties’ arguments of Duberg and UNESCO

            There were two parties involved in this case. The defendant party was Employer Company. While on the other hand, the second party involved in this case is complainant also known as Peter Duberg. Peter Duberg was an employee of UNESCO Company. How both parties presented there arguments are discussed below:

Defendant Party of Duberg and UNESCO

            Defendant party claim that Peter Duberg their employee was not interested to work up to the standards and policies of the company. According to them, action taken by the Peter Duberg to refuse to solve and to complete a loyalty checking questionnaire was a clear action that indicates that he was not obliging the rules set out by the president of the country and policies of his employer company (lawin.org, 2019). Moreover, defendant party was also not sure about the loyalty of the employee. According to them, not completing loyalty form itself shows how loyal Peter Duberg is with his company. Considering this behavior of Peter Duberg they concluded that giving another opportunity to the Peter Duberg as rehiring for next one year would not deliver benefits to the company (lawin.org, 2019). Peter Duberg would not benefit the company as he is not interested to follow up the instructions given to him. 

Complainant Party of Duberg and UNESCO 

            Complainant party means Peter Duberg an employee of UNESCO Company presented his arguments against this. According to him, the situation was quite the opposite of what was perceived. He refused to complete loyalty checking form intestinally with a purpose. But he did not ignore other legal notices and documents sent to him by the loyalty board with a purpose. Peter Duberg perceived himself as a loyal employee (lawin.org, 2019). According to him not following a single policy does not indicate that employee is not loyal to the company. He took the decision of loyalty board as an unfair decision regarding not to offering him next year contract. Considering this he took action and took his case in front of boards and then international labor organization to protect his right of employment in UNESCO (lawin.org, 2019).           

The tribunal’s decision of Duberg and UNESCO

Tribunal as an authority took decision regarding this case to help both parties resolve this matter in the effective way.

The significance of the case in international law

                  The case of Duberg v UNESCO has quite essential significance in the international law, proven with how the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization lined up the protection policies for the employee against the illogical action, which is considered to be more necessary than the standard principles of “administrative effectiveness.” The international law has found the significance of this case to make sure that there will be no more misconception in practicing the labor law. The International Labor Organization Administrative Tribunal or also known as ILOAT has acknowledged that there are further important resources mentioned such as integral settlements of the International Organizations. In respect of those settlements, the International Labor Organization Administrative Tribunal has also stated to the integral settlements of international organizations as considered to become valid in the fields of the terms in engagement process. And as the result from this, the international law realized that the preservation of protection and freedom for the labor has been offensive. The reason behind this is that, in the term of international organizations, there is still not provided for a judicious alternate definitions. Plus, the rules from the international law for an organization seem to be different with other organizations. Means, the rules are not being practiced for the entire international organizations in all over the world. For this reason, the international law needs to take a look at Duberg v UNESCO more carefully, in order to make an effective rules and regulations to protect the rights of the labor (Klabbers, 2019).