Judgment No. 4369
Decision
1. The Director-General’s decision of 27 October 2017 is set aside.
2. UNESCO shall pay the complainant 30,000 euros in compensation for injury under all heads.
3. It shall also pay her costs in the amount of 1,000 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; abolition of post; termination of employment; redeployment
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, part of an organisation’s duty of care towards its staff is to provide procedural guidance to a staff member who is mistaken in the exercise of a right insofar as that may allow them to take effective action. If there is still time, it must inform a staff member of the available means of redress (see Judgments 2345, consideration 1(c), and 2713, consideration 3(d)). In the circumstances of the case, the Appeals Board, or otherwise the Organization itself, if they considered the notice of appeal premature, should have informed the complainant so as to enable her to correct that procedural error, if need be after the decision dismissing her protest was adopted. Neither the Appeals Board nor the Organization complied with that duty. It follows that, owing to the requirements inherent in the principle of good faith, the objection to receivability based on the premature lodging of the notice of appeal with the Appeals Board must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2345, 2713
Keywords
internal appeal; duty of care
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgment 3905, consideration 15) and “the abolition decision is an administrative decision challengeable with the Tribunal in accordance with Article II of its Statute”, provided that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress that may be available to her or him (see also Judgments 3928, consideration 14, and 3929, consideration 13). Thus, since an internal appeal was not lodged in the prescribed period, the decision to abolish the complainant’s post has become final and cannot be contested in these proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3905, 3928, 3929
Keywords
internal remedies exhausted; abolition of post
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]here are no grounds for awarding [...] costs for the internal appeal proceedings.Under the Tribunal’s case law, costs of this kind may be awarded only in exceptional circumstances (see, in particular, Judgments 4156, consideration 9, or 4217, consideration 12). Such circumstances are not evident in this case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4156, 4217
Keywords
costs for internal appeal procedure
|
