Judgment No. 543
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is an elementary principle of the law of contract that if one party clearly and definitely refuses to honour his or her obligations, the other party is entitled to rescind the contract; and it does not matter whether or not any of the rules say so in so many words." [While expressing eagerness to continue serving the organization, the complainant refused the post assigned to her.]
Keywords
law of contract; no provision; termination of employment
Consideration 2
Extract:
Following two previous judgments [Nos. 375 and 392], "the complainant [found herself] in the position of a person holding an appointment without a post. She was therefore entitled to demand to be assigned to a suitable post and put back on the payroll. This would not exclude a fresh assignment to Brasilia, the Tribunal having in Judgment No. 375 rejected the complainant's objections to that post. Whether or not the incumbent in Brasilia was there on a temporary basis, it was open to the Director to create a vacancy there and assign the complainant to it. However, the complainant did not take the initiative in this respect."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 375, 392
Keywords
complainant; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; assignment; discretion; refusal
Consideration 5
Extract:
"There are [...] some well established limits to this obligation. Whatever the place of assignment, the post must be one as to which the duties of the post are set out in a post description, are within the capacity of the staff member and are not degrading. A staff member is not obliged to go to a place where she might have to run unacceptable risks of injury or ill health. in certain circumstances it may be the duty of the organization to consult with the staff member and take her views into account." Subject to limitations of this character, the matter falls under the Director's discretionary authority.
Keywords
duty to inform; assignment; duty station; post description; special hazard; discretion; limits
Consideration 9
Extract:
"There is an allegation of bad faith based on the fact that the organization did nothing to facilitate the complainant's return to it. The allegation fails. In view of the complainant's attitude the only way in which the organization could have facilitated her return would have been by conceding to her the right to veto the place of work assigned to her. to refuse to make such a concession is not bad faith."
Keywords
organisation; judgment of the tribunal; execution of judgment; good faith; assignment; reinstatement
| 
