L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > priorité

Judgment No. 1374

Decision

1. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISIONS OF 11 AUGUST 1992 ARE QUASHED.
2. THE COMPLAINANTS ARE REINSTATED AS FROM THE DATE OF SEPARATION FROM SERVICE.
3. THE PAHO SHALL MAKE TO EACH OF THEM PAYMENTS TO BE RECKONED AS SET OUT UNDER 12.
4. THE CASES ARE SENT BACK TO THE ORGANIZATION SO THAT IT MAY CARRY OUT ANEW THE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE MATERIAL RULES.
5. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY EACH OF THE COMPLAINANTS 500 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
6. THEIR OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
7. THE APPLICATIONS TO INTERVENE ARE ALLOWED.

Consideration 6

Extract:

According to the case law (see Judgments 469 and 1045) the reduction-in-force procedure "must be followed before, not after, notice of termination is given. In line with the rules and the case law, therefore, the notices of termination served on the complainants [...] were premature and so unlawful and without effect. For that reason [...] their contracts must be deemed to have been extended by implication."

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 469, 1045

Keywords

procedure before the tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; case law; due process; staff regulations and rules; contract; reinstatement; non-renewal of contract; notice; staff reduction; flaw

Consideration 9

Extract:

"The PAHO's applying the wrong criteria to determine the 'priority groups' flaws the reduction-in-force procedure because it means that the staff whose posts had been abolished were not put in the order of priority prescribed in the manual for retention."

Keywords

procedure before the tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; due process; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; abolition of post; priority; staff reduction; flaw; criteria

Consideration 11

Extract:

"Even if the reduction-in-force procedure had been properly carried out the letters [which the PAHO sent the complainants] did not give valid notice of termination. They gave the complainants only just over one month's notice [...], not the three months to which they were entitled under Rule 1050.3. For that reason too the complainants' contracts must be deemed to have been extended by implication."

Reference(s)

Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1050.3

Keywords

procedure before the tribunal; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; intervention; time limit; decision quashed; case sent back to organisation; staff regulations and rules; contract; reinstatement; non-renewal of contract; notice; staff reduction; flaw



 
Dernière mise à jour: 07.11.2017 ^ haut