Judgment No. 1371
1. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1993 IS QUASHED.
2. THE COMPLAINANT IS REINSTATED AS FROM THE DATE OF HIS SEPARATION FROM SERVICE.
3. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY HIM IN FULL THE SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND ANY OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO HIM UNDER HIS CONTRACT, LESS ANY INDEMNITY OR EARNINGS HE MAY HAVE RECEIVED IN THE MEANTIME.
4. IT SHALL APPLY THE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROCEDURE TO HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RULE 1050 AND THE MANUAL.
5. IT SHALL PAY HIM 3,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
6. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
The complainant's "appraisal reports contain adverse comment by his supervisors, especially on his lack of initiative, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that their views were not honestly held or were prejudiced. He was given a proper opportunity to comment on those views and his comments form part of the reports. In the circumstances the Tribunal disallows his application for the removal of them from his personal file."
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1317
lack of injury; personal file; right to reply; good faith; work appraisal; performance report; unsatisfactory service; supervisor; bias
The ad hoc reduction-in-force committee has discretion to consider a candidate well-suited for work in a particular group "on the strength of his actual qualifications and experience. In this case the committee failed to exercise such discretion and so the reduction-in-force procedure has not been duly completed. It must therefore be restarted."
procedure before the tribunal; advisory body; due process; professional category; candidate; staff reduction; discretion; flaw
"The complainant not having received any valid notice under Rule 1050.3, his contract was renewed by implication and remains in force."
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF RULE 1050.3
staff regulations and rules; contract; reinstatement; non-renewal of contract; termination of employment; notice; flaw