ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > priority

Judgment No. 1553


1. The Organization's decisions of 29 December 1992, 25 July 1994 and 10 November 1994 are quashed.
2. The Organization shall either, within sixty days of the date of publication of this judgment:
(a) reinstate the complainant at her former grade as from 1 February 1993 and up to the date of this judgment;
(b) pay her salary, allowances and any other benefits accordingly, less any indemnities she may have received on termination;
(c) pay her interest on all arrears at the rate of 10 per cent a year as from the dates at which they fell due; and
(d) grant her a contract of appointment for a period of two years from the date of this judgment at the same grade and in a post matching her qualifications and experience;
or, failing that:
(a) pay her damages in an amount equivalent to her salary and allowances for four years and six months at the rates prevailing at 31 January 1993, less any indemnities she may have received on termination; and
(b) pay her interest on the net amount at the rate of 10 per cent a year as from 20 December 1994, the date of correction of her complaint, up to the date of payment.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant a total of 500,000 French francs in damages for material and moral injury.
4. It shall pay her 50,000 French francs in costs.
5. Her other claims are dismissed.

Consideration 24


UNESCO Staff Regulation 4.4 grants priority to serving staff for appointment to vacant posts. "Despite the unanimous recommendations by the senior personnel advisory boards and by the Appeals Board the Organization failed to give the complainant priority for vacant posts. It put the wrong question to its units and to its bureau of personnel. The right question was not whether there was a post that fitted her qualifications and experience but whether there was a post of which she was capable of fulfilling the duties competently. [...] No instructions went out that she should be given priority for any vacant posts. So the decision to terminate her services rested on a misinterpretation of Regulation 4.4 and so on a mistake of law. That decision must therefore be set aside".


Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF REGULATION 4.4


decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; interpretation; vacancy; candidate; internal candidate; qualifications; reinstatement; abolition of post; reassignment; priority; termination of employment; material damages

Last updated: 20.08.2020 ^ top