Judgment No. 1342
1. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S DECISION OF 1 JUNE 1993 IS QUASHED.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT IN FULL THE SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND ANY OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO HIM UNDER CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT IS SET OUT IN CONSIDERATION 15.
3. IT SHALL PAY HIM $4,000 IN DAMAGES FOR MORAL INJURY.
4. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
There is evidence that the reasons the WHO gave for not extending his appointment were mistaken. "The refusal to extend the complainant's contract on patently untenable grounds makes it 'more probable than not' that the decision was actuated by personal prejudice against him. It therefore cannot stand."
moral injury; contract; separation from service; non-renewal of contract; bias; presumption
The Organization decided not to extend the complainant's appointment. It submits that the project to which it assigned him was one of limited duration and that there was accordingly no need to apply the reduction-in-force procedure. "Here the project was not one of limited duration. First, the WHO has not produced any document which established the complainant's post or prescribed its duration. Moreover, even assuming that it might have begun as a post of limited duration, the several extensions of it show that it had become one of indefinite duration and the complainant was therefore entitled on the abolition of it to have the reduction-in-force procedure applied."
procedure before the tribunal; moral injury; due process; amendment to the rules; creation of post; legitimate expectation; post held by the complainant; post; fixed-term; permanent appointment; abolition of post; staff reduction
Having been born on 24 October 1934, [the complainant] is now only a few months short of the normal age of retirement, which is sixty; moreover, he is already being paid a retirement pension. So it is too late to order reinstatement or compliance with the reduction-in-force procedure.