Judgment No. 2982
Decision
1. The decision of 27 January 2009 is set aside insofar as it failed to allow the complainant's internal appeal with respect to his claim of harassment and the decision of 17 June 2008.
2. IOM shall pay the complainant the difference between the salary he would have earned had he worked full time in a P.3 post and that actually earned from 1 October 2008 until he is or was appointed to a full-time post or, in the alternative, until his employment is or was lawfully terminated together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from due dates until the date of payment. It shall also pay the difference in pension contributions for the same period.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant moral damages in the sum of 20,000 Swiss francs and costs in the amount of 5,000 francs.
4. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Replacement of a staff member in circumstances constituting harassment.
"The Tribunal has consistently held [...] that an organisation 'cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member's unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance' (see Judgment 2916, under 4). It is also well established that an organisation 'owes it to its employees, especially probationers, to guide them in the performance of their duties and to warn them in specific terms if they are not giving satisfaction and are in risk of dismissal' (see Judgment 2732, under 16)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2732, 2916
Keywords
decision; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal; probationary period; staff assessment; unsatisfactory service; warning
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The complainant] was replaced virtually immediately even though his contract had somewhat less than two months to run [...] and he had earlier been told that he was to be provided with assistance for the project; he was given no warning of the decision; he was not heard on the question and adequate reasons were not provided. Replacing the complainant in these circumstances constituted '[a]ctions [...] directed at actively damaging [his] personal and/or professional reputation' and, thus, falls within the definition of 'harassment' in General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IOM General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002
Keywords
decision; duty to substantiate decision; moral injury; professional injury; organisation's duties; duty to inform; reassignment; warning; harassment
| 
