Judgment No. 4094
1. WHO shall pay the complainant 10,000 Swiss francs in moral damages.
2. WHO shall pay the complainant 20,000 Swiss francs in material damages.
3. WHO shall pay the complainant 7,000 Swiss francs in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant contests the decision to abolish her post and to terminate her fixed-term contract.
complaint allowed; abolition of post; termination of employment
The Tribunal recently addressed this question in Judgment 4036, considerations 7 and 8, citing Judgment 3908. Several propositions emerge from Judgment 4036 which are consistent with earlier case law. The first is that normative legal documents promulgated within an organization cannot alone circumscribe the obligation of the organization to explore other employment options within the organization for staff whose positions have been abolished. The second is that an organization has a duty to apply processes biased in favour of the staff member whose position has been abolished and which are likely to promote appointment to another position. The third and related proposition is that an organization has an obligation to deal fairly with staff who occupy an abolished position which ordinarily extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications. This last proposition is qualified by matters referred to in consideration 16 of Judgment 3908. The fourth proposition is that it is not the Tribunal’s role to actually assess whether a staff member whose position has been abolished was suitable for another position to which they might have been reassigned. Rather, it is to ascertain whether any or adequate consideration was given to the fact that the complainant was then a member of staff whose post had been abolished and was facing the termination of her or his employment.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908, 4036
organisation's duties; abolition of post; reassignment