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

Judgment No. 3588

Decision

1. WHO shall pay the complainant an amount equal to his P5 salary, including all benefits, entitlements and compensation for home leave as of 16 April 2011 until the expiration of his P5 fixed-term contract on 30 November 2011 in the manner discussed in consideration 10.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the amounts referred to in paragraph 1 of this order as and from the date they would have been payable had the complainant’s employment not be terminated, until the monies are paid.
3. WHO shall pay the complainant 60,000 United States dollars in further material damages.
4. WHO shall pay the complainant 20,000 United States dollars in moral damages.
5. WHO shall reimburse the complainant the costs incurred in bringing the internal appeal upon the production of invoices, less any amounts already paid either by WHO and any amounts paid or payable under any policy of insurance applicable to the circumstances of the complainant.
6. WHO shall pay the complainant 8,000 Swiss francs in costs for the proceedings before the Tribunal.
7. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the amount of damages awarded by WHO following his internal appeal against the decision not to match him to a new position after the abolition of his post and to terminate his appointment.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

abolition of post; reassignment; termination

Consideration 10

Extract:

"[T]he HBA’s recommendation that the complainant be awarded his P5 salary, including all benefits, entitlements and compensation for home leave as of [...] until the expiration of his P5 fixed-term contract [...] was an appropriate approach to the material damages which should have been awarded to the complainant. From that amount should be deducted any monies earned from other employment during that period. The complainant says there was none. However this assessment of the material damages would not include the WHO component of the health insurance contribution payable over that period nor the amounts which otherwise would have been payable by way of pension contributions (see, for example, Judgment 3153, under 4-6)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3153

Keywords

material injury; material damages

Consideration 11

Extract:

"[B]ecause the complainant was not appointed to the new P4 position, he lost the valuable benefit of furthering his career in WHO for which he is entitled to material damages."

Keywords

material injury; material damages

Consideration 13

Extract:

"The last matter [...] is whether the complainant was entitled to a termination indemnity under Staff Rule 1050.10 on the basis that he had 11 years of service (interrupted by a period of employment outside WHO) rather than four years of relevant service, which was the basis upon which WHO assessed his entitlement. It is unlikely that the years of service referred to is the entire period of service broken by other employment. That is because a staff member who was terminated would be entitled to payment under the provision by reference to prior uninterrupted service, but if re-employed and again later terminated would, on the complainant’s approach, be entitled to termination indemnity on the second occasion by reference to the period for which such a payment had already been made."

Keywords

terminal entitlements



 
Last updated: 27.03.2017 ^ top