Judgment No. 4180
1. The impugned decision dated 3 June 2016 is set aside to the extent stated in consideration 10 of the judgment.
2. The ICC shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 8,000 euros.
3. The ICC shall also pay the complainant costs in the amount of 500 euros.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.
complaint allowed; decision quashed; abolition of post; termination of employment; selection procedure
The complainant requests oral proceedings. For the purpose of this case, however, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to hear further evidence. The parties have presented ample submissions and documents to permit the Tribunal to reach an informed decision on the case. The request for oral proceedings will therefore be rejected.
Consistent principle has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, as well as decisions concerning the selection of a successful applicant in a competition, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring and decisions relating to it as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2933, under 10, and 3372, under 12, respectively).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3372
The Appeals Board’s report in the present matter is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues raised in the internal appeal and, on its analysis, the conclusions and recommendations of the Appeals Board were justified and rational. It is a report of a character which engages the principle recently discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 3608, consideration 7, that the report warrants “considerable deference” (see also, for example, Judgments 3400, consideration 6, and 2295, consideration 10).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2295, 3400, 3608
internal appeals body; report of the internal appeals body
The Tribunal would normally remit the matter to the ICC so that a proper investigation regarding the complainant’s harassment complaint could be conducted. However, in this case, in view of the fact that the complainant is no longer employed with the ICC and given the passage of time since the alleged events leading to the harassment complaint occurred, remitting the matter to the ICC would serve no useful purpose. Nevertheless, since the complainant was denied the right to have her harassment complaint duly investigated, and also taking due note of the fact that she could have initiated the formal procedure directly with the Registrar in accordance with Section 7.1 of the Instruction, the complainant will be awarded moral damages [...].
case sent back to organisation; harassment