Judgment No. 901
1. THE ILO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT TOTAL DAMAGES EQUIVALENT TO SIX TIMES THE MONTHLY PAY HE WOULD HAVE GOT HAD HIS APPOINTMENT BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
2. IT SHALL PAY HIM 1,000 SWISS FRANCS IN COSTS.
3. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The complainant was on mission when he was terminated as persona non grata. "There was no objective report on this case. [...] All this makes it plain that summary termination under 11.4 [of the Staff Regulations] was in breach of the complainant's right of reply and cannot stand."
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 11.4 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
field; project personnel; right to reply; contract; fixed-term; termination of employment; persona non grata; flaw; procedural flaw
"Even where termination before expiry is due to the necessities of the service there must be explanation and justification of the decision because it amounts to unilateral breach of the contract. The Director-General does not then have the discretionary authority he may exercise on expiry and, for one thing, the Tribunal will consider whether the decision serves the organisation's interests, as it should."
duty to substantiate decision; contract; fixed-term; termination of employment; judicial review; discretion; organisation's interest
"When an international official on mission shows professional shortcomings or fails in his duty of 'reserve' the government may of course ask the organisation to withdraw him. But termination is not the inevitable outcome. For one thing, so long as the contract is in force the Director-General does not have discretionary authority; for another, he may discuss the matter with the government [...] In any case even when the organisation acquiesces it need not terminate the appointment on that account."
field; project personnel; organisation's duties; termination of employment; misconduct; duty of discretion; persona non grata; discretion; consequence