Judgment No. 1432
1. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S DECISION OF 27 APRIL 1994 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY HER IN DAMAGES THE SUMS SET OUT IN CONSIDERATION 13 AND SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO RESTORE HER PENSION ENTITLEMENTS.
3. IT SHALL PAY HER 10,000 SWISS FRANCS IN MORAL DAMAGES.
4. IT SHALL PAY HER 7,500 SWISS FRANCS IN COSTS.
5. HER OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Some days before the expiry of her contract the complainant's doctor prescribed a medical certificate for one month's sick leave. The complainant invokes Judgment 932 [...] which states that "a staff member cannot be separated while on sick leave" and argues that her appointment was prolonged for the duration of the sick leave. The Tribunal holds that "the effect was not to postpone the scheduled date of expiry of her contract. The fact is that she was not treated as having been on sick leave [during the period preceding the expiry of her contract]. So Judgment 938 [...] does not support her case."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 938
case law; contract; separation from service; non-renewal of contract; sick leave
"The Tribunal is satisfied that even though there was no formal written agreement between the organization and the complainant all the conditions that the case-law requires were met for the existence of a legally binding contract." The Tribunal recites the circumstances which allowed it to arrive at this conclusion.
case law; contract; condition; definition
"It is immaterial to the fact of recruitment that the decision to recruit her may have been taken ultra vires. [...] The organization must bear the consequences of any decision taken by someone it has itself appointed for the purpose".
decision; liability; organisation; organisation's duties; contract; appointment; decision-maker; lack of consent
It is immaterial to the fact of recruitment that the decision to recruit her [...] may not have followed the necessary formalities. [...] The lack of prior medical clearance for the new post does not amount to a fatal flaw in the mutual agreement between the WHO's agents and the complainant."
contract; appointment; medical examination; lack of consent
The organization wrongly told the complainant that she was not under contract after reassigning her to a post in the field following a break in service. The Tribunal concludes that the complainant had been reemployed by the organization and that "on account of [its] attitude towards her she has sustained moral injury over and above the [material] injury [that she sustained]".
material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; contract