Judgment No. 630
Decision
1. THE ILO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 10,000 SWISS FRANCS.
2. IT SHALL ALSO PAY HER 3,000 FRANCS AS COSTS.
Consideration 5
Extract:
All staff members should hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto. This "principle will not in practice have the effect of impairing the legitimate authority of the head of branch. Work requirements will determine how staff are to be assigned, and the result may be that a staff member has some of his duties taken away from him or is set to work that does not quite match his inclinations or even his talents. The supervisor is also entitled to propose that a staff member be moved [...] but so long as the staff member remains in a particular branch the head must see to it that he is given real work."
Keywords
organisation's duties; refusal to assign work; assignment; transfer; post; qualifications; staff member's duties; supervisor; organisation's interest; request by a party; right; official
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Only where the staff member's behaviour makes the situation intolerable may the administration contemplate giving him no work at all, and the decision will still be subject to judicial review. The same is true where a staff member commits gross misconduct, but for that provision is made in the staff regulations in the form of suspension with pay pending administrative investigation."
Keywords
inquiry; refusal to assign work; staff regulations and rules; serious misconduct; conduct; suspension; judicial review; investigation
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The manner in which [the complainant] was deprived of her duties was sudden and discourteous. Her position has remained unaltered for some years. And not only did her supervisor fail in his responsibility towards her; the ILO, too, since she had committed no misconduct, ought to have done its utmost to find proper duties and responsibilities for her."
Keywords
liability; organisation's duties; refusal to assign work; supervisor
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was inconsiderately left idle. The organisation ought to have done its utmost to set the situation right. "The Tribunal holds that the ilo caused serious injury to the complainant's feelings and reputation and was in breach of its obligations. It shall pay her compensation for moral injury. Inasmuch as it finds the ILO at fault the present judgment itself affords a remedy, but she is also entitled to damages for the serious prejudice she has suffered [...]."
Keywords
moral injury; professional injury; organisation; organisation's duties; refusal to assign work; breach; allowance; misconduct; compensation
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant was not given any work. The organisation refers to her frequent absences on sick leave. "If the complainant was ill the ILO was under a duty to grant her rights under the Staff Regulations."
Keywords
applicable law; organisation's duties; refusal to assign work; staff regulations and rules; illness; sick leave
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the unfair treatment lies in her being kept idle for so long. Accordingly the time limit for filing an appeal did not begin on the date on which her supervisor decided, while keeping her on her post, to give her no more work: the injury occurred only with the passage of time. Thus, although it was only after being kept idle for a considerable lapse of time that the complainant appealed to the Director-General, and then to the Tribunal, for compensation for the injury she alleged, her claims are not time-barred and her complaint is receivable."
Keywords
complaint; injury; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; iloat; refusal to assign work; period; post; supervisor; executive head; compensation; date; request by a party
| 
