Judgment No. 2645
1. The impugned decision is quashed.
2. The FAO shall pay the complainant a sum equivalent to one year's salary and allowances for injury under all heads, as indicated under 11.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
"[T]he decision not to renew the complainant's appointment was taken for a reason other than that invoked by the defendant and should therefore be quashed".
decision; grounds; organisation; contract; non-renewal of contract; consequence; difference
[T]he complainant, in her appeal to the Director-General, the rejection of which prompted her to submit the matter to the Appeals Committee, merely requested that the disciplinary measure of suspension be revoked and that she be reinstated in the Organization. In her appeal she asked the Committee to rule that the penalties imposed on her were unlawful. It would therefore appear that during the internal proceedings she filed no specific claim for damages for an injury due to the sexual harassment she claimed to have suffered, although she dwelt at length on her allegations of sexual harassment and attributes the reprisals by her supervisor to her having reported them.
The Tribunal therefore considers that any claim for damages for the injury that the complainant allegedly suffered as a result of sexual harassment constitutes an extension of the scope of the claims filed during the internal appeal proceedings and is therefore irreceivable pursuant to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal’s Statute inasmuch as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress (see, inter alia, Judgement 1380, under 12).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380
moral injury; new plea; sexual harassment
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sexual harassment
According to the case law, “[a]ny organisation that is serious about deterring sexual harassment and consequential abuse of authority by a superior officer must be seen to take proper action. In particular victims of such behaviour must feel confident that it will take their allegations seriously and not let them be victimised on that account” (see Judgment 1376, under 19).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376