Judgment No. 3010
1. The Director-General's decision of 18 February 2009 to terminate the complainant's contract is set aside.
2. The WTO shall pay the complainant the salary and other benefits payable for the period 1 March 2009 to 28 February 2010, together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from due dates until the date of payment less the amounts already paid in lieu of notice and by way of termination indemnity. The complainant must give credit for her net earnings during that period.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 15,000 Swiss francs.
4. It shall also pay her costs in the amount of 6,000 francs.
5. The complainant's 2006 and 2007 performance evaluation reports shall be removed from her personnel file and destroyed.
6. All other claims are dismissed.
Abolition of post and termination of contract following restructuring / Failure by the Organization to consult the joint advisory body (Appointment and Promotion Board) prior to terminating the complainant's contract .
"[T]he purpose of a provision requiring referral of the proposed termination of a contract to an advisory body is, as stated in Judgment 2352, 'to allow that body to ensure that all the conditions for taking such a step are met, with a view to submitting a recommendation to the executive head'".
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2352
decision; advisory body; recommendation; provision; contract; termination; executive head; condition; purpose
"[T]he restructured service is independent of the [Organization], has a new and different focus and has resulted in a significant reduction in cost, all of which make it impossible to accept the complainant's argument that the restructuring was not in the Organization's interest and did not result in budget efficiency. In these circumstances, it is to be concluded that the restructuring was genuine and not simply 'a pretext for dislodging undesirable staff' (see Judgment 1231, under 26)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231
reorganisation; staff reduction; organisation's interest; reduction
The complainant seeks orders annulling the abolition of her post and reinstatement. These orders must be refused. Although the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract must be set aside, there is no reason to set aside the decision to abolish her post and, that being so, reinstatement is not possible. However, the complainant is entitled to the salary and other benefits that she would have received on the basis that her contract was renewed until 28 February 2010, that being the date on which it would otherwise have expired, together with interest from due dates until the date of payment, less the amount of the payments made in lieu of notice and by way of termination indemnity. The complainant must give credit for any net earnings between 1 March 2009 and 28 February 2010.
reinstatement; abolition of post