Judgment No. 2090
Decision
1. THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION TAKEN ON 18 AUGUST 2000 AND CONFIRMED ON 11 DECEMBER 2000 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE FEDERATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT COMPENSATION TO BE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSIDERATION 9, AND MORAL DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT OF 10,000 SWISS FRANCS.
3. THE FEDERATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 10,000 FRANCS IN COSTS.
4. THE COMPLAINANT'S OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
5. THE FEDERATION'S COUNTERCLAIM IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organisation asserts that "Article 1010.1 allows it to terminate an appointment by giving one month's notice per year of service [...] The Tribunal observes that [...] 1010.1 may not be interpreted as authorising [the organisation] to terminate [fixed- term] contracts arbitrarily. Decisions of this kind must be based on unsatisfactory performance, or the interests of the service. Furthermore, there must be no breach of adversarial procedure nor any error of fact or of law, nor abuse of authority, nor obvious misappraisal of the facts."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 1010.1 OF THE IFRC STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; adversarial proceedings; due process; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; provision; contract; fixed-term; termination of employment; notice; unsatisfactory service; organisation's interest; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; bias; abuse of power
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
Because of restructuring the complainant's post was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "There is obviously nothing unlawful about restructuring per se and it will always mean regrouping duties and sacrificing posts. But in carrying out such an exercise, an organisation has a duty to observe the rights and safeguards of its staff [...] The [organisation]'s first duty in addressing the consequences of [the complainant's] redundancy was to offer him a transfer to another suitable post. Only if that proved impossible should it [pay him the indemnity payable in the event of redundancy]. But there is no evidence that the [organisation] did its utmost to find him a post which matched his skills and level of responsibility."
Keywords
contract; post held by the complainant; abolition of post; reorganisation; discontinuance
| 
