text: 2.Accordingly, the Tribunal is requested to order the Respondent to pay to the Applicant a sum equal to two years' net base salary by way of compensation to him for the unsatisfactory aspects of his employment with IMO, including the denial of his entitlement to a family visit in 1981 at the expense of the Organization and the expenses incurred by him for typing, translation and other items, such award to absorb all the specific claims detailed in the present application." Whereas the Respondent filed his answer on 4 October 1989; Whereas the Applicant filed written observations on 21 November 1989; Whereas, on 16 March 1990, the Tribunal ruled that no oral proceedings would be held in the case; Whereas, on 27 March 1990, the Tribunal put questions to the Respondent, and on 4 April 1990, he provided answers thereto; Whereas, on 2 April 1990, the Applicant submitted an additional document; Whereas the facts in the case are as follows: James Alexander Logan Cosh was recruited by IMO on 1 July 1977 as a Marine Pollution Adviser for Latin America. He served initially on two successive one year fixed-term appointments at the L-5 level, on secondment from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, through 30 June 1979. The Applicant's duty station was Santiago de Chile, Chile. His duties were set forth in an attachment to his initial letter of appointment and were identical to those specified in a vacancy announcement- 4 - dated 1 January 1977, which had prompted the Applicant's candidature for the post. In July 1978, IMO appointed Mr. Ignacio Vergara, a Chilean national, as an Assistant Regional Marine Pollution Adviser for Latin America to be stationed as well in Santiago de Chile. The Applicant asserts that this appointment was made by IMO "as a favour
analysis: This text appears to be related to an employment dispute between an individual, James Alexander Logan Cosh, and an international organization, the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The dispute seems to revolve around compensation for unsatisfactory aspects of his employment, including the denial of a family visit and expenses incurred for work-related tasks. The text also mentions specific duties and appointments, which suggests that the employment context is relevant. Therefore, it is likely that the category related to employment is the most fitting.