Judgment No. 136
Decision
1. The Tribunal orders the rescinding of the decision of the Director-General made on 29 April 1968 and the Organization shall either:
(a) renew the complainant's contract as from 30 June 1968, making such payment by way of salary in respect of the period between 30 June 1968 and the date on which the complainant is taken back into employment as may be equitable, having regard, in particular, to the earnings, if any, made by the complainant during the said period; or
(b) pay the complainant such compensation as is equitable in all the circumstances.
2. The Organization shall pay to the complainant equitable compensation in respect of the illegality of his suspension from duty on 17 April 1968.
3. The other submissions in the complaint are dismissed.
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The organization seeks to justify the decision [not to renew contract] on the ground that the complainant, by making grave accusations against a colleague, had created a situation which made the smooth working of the [regional office] impossible [...]. The error which the Director-General made - an error which in the opinion of the Tribunal vitiates his decision not to renew the complainant's contract - is that he judged and condemned the accuser before the accusations had themselves been judged".
Keywords
contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; working relations; flaw
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant made accusations which led to an inquiry. When the decision not to renew his contract was taken, the results of the inquiry were not yet known. The accuser was judged before the accusations themselves. The decision is tainted by error and must be rescinded; "the organization must either renew the contract on equitable terms or pay to the complainant such compensation as is equitable".
Keywords
complainant; inquiry; organisation's duties; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; misconduct; flaw; investigation
Consideration 3
Extract:
The suspension of the complainant was followed by an improper decision not to renew his contract. Having received his full salary, the complainant "has suffered no material damage, but he has suffered moral damage. He is entitled to equitable compensation for the distress caused by the manner of his treatment and for the injury done thereby to his reputation and to his prospects of obtaining other employment. The organization must therefore pay to the complainant equitable compensation in respect of the illegality of his suspension from duty".
Keywords
injury; moral injury; professional injury; contract; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; suspension; flaw
Consideration 4
Extract:
If the organization does not renew the appointment, it shall pay complainant such compensation as is equitable. If the sums offered to the complainant "are not such as he considers equitable, he may submit a claim in respect thereof to the Tribunal, giving all the information necessary to its assessment and stating in particular : a) the amount of his remuneration when employed by the organization; and b) the nature and periods of any employment obtained by him since [he left the organization] and the amounts earned thereby."
Keywords
amount; contract; reinstatement; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; suspension; criteria; subsidiary; material damages
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant was suspended from his duties on the ground that he allegedly misused office facilities to spread unfounded allegations. "This suspension does not fall within any of the cases [covered by the Staff Regulations] and, in the particular circumstances of the case, is in fact a disciplinary measure. The organization has therefore committed a breach of contract by suspending [the] complainant otherwise than in accordance with the Staff Regulations".
Keywords
staff regulations and rules; breach; provision; misconduct; duty of discretion; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; hidden disciplinary measure; suspension
| 
