Judgment No. 1131
Decision
1. UNESCO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT MATERIAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE YEAR'S FULL PAY AT GRADE P.2 AT THE RATE PREVAILING AT THE DATE OF TERMINATION.
2. IT SHALL PAY HIM 2,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that UNESCO's decision to separate the complainant from service after it abolished his post was flawed by the Organization's failure to abide by the rules in Circular No. 1583. The report of the Joint Co-Operation Committee, which was to make a recommendation on the case, gives no evidence of any discussion of the administration's proposals concerning the complainant. What is more, the proposal to freeze his post did not come from the competent authority. A redeployment proposal was rejected without having been discussed or put to the Director-General as required by the circular. As the complainant is not seeking reinstatement, the Tribunal grants him redress for material injury in the amount of one year's full pay.
Keywords
advisory body; competence; organisation's duties; administrative instruction; fixed-term; separation from service; abolition of post; reassignment; non-renewal of contract; consultation; decision-maker; procedural flaw; advisory opinion
Consideration 2
Extract:
In keeping with a resolution adopted by the General Conference in response to budgetary constraints UNESCO had to make staff cuts. "According to the definition of its competence in its Statute, the Tribunal will not review the policy followed by the Director-General in furtherance of the Conference's decision. It will, however, consider whether there was any flaw in the Director-General's exercise of his authority in an individual case."
Keywords
decision; general decision; individual decision; competence of tribunal; enforcement; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; judicial review; executive head; legislative body
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal's "power of review is limited. It may not supplant an organisation's view with its own on such matters as a restructuring of posts or redeployment of staff intended to make savings or improve efficiency. Nor may it consider whether abolishing a post was the right thing to do. But it will interfere with any decision that was taken without authority [etc]".
Keywords
competence of tribunal; abolition of post; budgetary reasons; reorganisation; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not review a policy set by the General Conference, but it does review individual decisions taken to give effect to such policy".
Keywords
decision; general decision; individual decision; competence of tribunal; judicial review; legislative body
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The answer to [the complainant's] claim to moral damages is that such a claim will not lie just because the decision was unlawful. In this case the purpose of the impugned decision [to abolish his post for budgetary reasons] was quite proper and there was nothing demeaning about it."
Keywords
decision; moral injury; flaw; condition
| 
