Judgment No. 2354
Decision
1. The Organization shall pay the complainant an amount calculated as indicated under 11 in compensation for injury under all heads.
2. It shall also pay him the sum of 3,000 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
The complainant's post as a translator was abolished and his appointment was terminated. "According to the [applicable] provisions, the Secretary General was obliged to consult the Staff Committee before terminating [an] appointment. The Tribunal considers that this obligation to consult - which must not be seen as just an unnecessary formality, even though the Secretary General is not bound by the opinion of the advisory body - is not fulfilled unless the advisory body is in such a position that it can give an opinion independently and in full knowledge of the facts, which implies that it must be provided with all the information it needs, and especially the real reasons for the proposed measure, so that it can express an objective opinion. [...] While it emerges from the submissions that the general reasons for reducing the number of translators had been brought to the attention of the Staff Committee, it has not been established that the latter had been given the specific reasons for suppressing the complainant's post, rather than that of another official of the same grade and in the same Directorate, prior to delivering its opinion. [...] In the Tribunal's view, this lack of precise information concerning the specific reason for the decision to suppress the complainant's post in particular and to terminate his appointment invalidated the consultation provided for in [the applicable provisions], which is tantamount to saying that no consultation took place."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Regulation 12(a), Staff Rule 12.1(a) and Staff Circular No. 142
Keywords
decision; grounds; advisory body; lack of evidence; due process; independence; organisation's duties; duty to inform; written rule; staff regulations and rules; provision; grade; post held by the complainant; abolition of post; termination of employment; staff reduction; executive head; flaw; advisory opinion; binding character; condition; consequence; official
Consideration 11
Extract:
In the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal does not consider the reinstatement of the complainant to be appropriate. However, availing itself of its powers under Article VIII of its Statute, and in view of the unlawful actions of the Organization, it shall order the latter to pay the complainant, in compensation for injury under all heads, an amount equivalent to two years’ salary and allowances, without deducting the terminal allowance he has already received. The claim for compensation for the injury arising from the excessive delay of the internal appeal procedure is deemed by the Tribunal to be unjustified.
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
Keywords
reinstatement; compensation
|
