Judgment No. 756
Decision
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS SET ASIDE INSOFAR AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THIS JUDGMENT.
2. THE COMPLAINANT SHALL BE REINSTATED IN A POST EQUIVALENT TO THE ONE THAT WAS ABOLISHED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AS FROM 1 JULY 1986, HER APPOINTMENT TO BE RENEWABLE UNDER THE ORDINARY CONDITIONS GOVERNING FIXED-TERM APPOINTMENTS.
3. IF NOT REINSTATED AS ORDERED IN 2, SHE SHALL BE PAID, FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH SHE HAS NOT WORKED, COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE SUMS SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO.
4. THE PAHO SHALL PAY HER 5,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS AS COMPENSATION FOR INJURY.
5. SHE IS AWARDED $2,500 IN COSTS.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The abolition was in fact just an expedient hurriedly found to put an end to the complainant's employment. That that is so is plain from evidence that shows the secretarial duties she had been performing were assigned to two others immediately after she left. Contrary to the telex sent to her on 21 August 1984 and informing her of the decision of 15 August, which said that her post was no longer considered necessary, in fact it was. the Tribunal accordingly holds that a mistaken and wrongful procedure was followed to end her contract and that the measure was therefore unlawful." The Tribunal orders the organization to reinstate the complainant.
Keywords
contract; reinstatement; fixed-term; abolition of post; termination of employment; misuse of authority; abuse of power
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Failing [...] reinstatement the complainant is entitled to be paid for the period during which she has not worked compensation equivalent to the sums she would have been paid if reinstated, the purpose being to safeguard the right to reinstatement."
Keywords
amount; reinstatement; abolition of post; subsidiary; material damages
| 
