Judgment No. 3582
Decision
1. WHO shall pay the complainant 4,000 United States dollars in addition to the compensation already awarded in the decision of 20 August 2013.
2. It shall also pay her 1,500 dollars in costs for the proceedings before the Tribunal.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; fixed-term; abolition of post; non-renewal of contract
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353
Keywords
abolition of post; discretion; limits
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the amount of damages awarded for the injury caused by an unreasonable delay in processing an internal appeal depends on the length of the delay and its consequences (see Judgment 3530, under 5).
Whatever the extent of the delay, its consequences naturally vary depending on the subject matter of the dispute. A delay in resolving a matter of limited seriousness in its impact on the appellant will ordinarily be less injurious than a delay in resolving a matter which has a severe impact (see Judgment 3160, under 17).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 3530
Keywords
moral injury; internal appeal; delay in internal procedure
|
