L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par session > 81e session

Judgment No. 1553

Decision

1. The Organization's decisions of 29 December 1992, 25 July 1994 and 10 November 1994 are quashed.
2. The Organization shall either, within sixty days of the date of publication of this judgment:
(a) reinstate the complainant at her former grade as from 1 February 1993 and up to the date of this judgment;
(b) pay her salary, allowances and any other benefits accordingly, less any indemnities she may have received on termination;
(c) pay her interest on all arrears at the rate of 10 per cent a year as from the dates at which they fell due; and
(d) grant her a contract of appointment for a period of two years from the date of this judgment at the same grade and in a post matching her qualifications and experience;
or, failing that:
(a) pay her damages in an amount equivalent to her salary and allowances for four years and six months at the rates prevailing at 31 January 1993, less any indemnities she may have received on termination; and
(b) pay her interest on the net amount at the rate of 10 per cent a year as from 20 December 1994, the date of correction of her complaint, up to the date of payment.
3. The Organization shall pay the complainant a total of 500,000 French francs in damages for material and moral injury.
4. It shall pay her 50,000 French francs in costs.
5. Her other claims are dismissed.

Consideration 24

Extract:

UNESCO Staff Regulation 4.4 grants priority to serving staff for appointment to vacant posts. "Despite the unanimous recommendations by the senior personnel advisory boards and by the Appeals Board the Organization failed to give the complainant priority for vacant posts. It put the wrong question to its units and to its bureau of personnel. The right question was not whether there was a post that fitted her qualifications and experience but whether there was a post of which she was capable of fulfilling the duties competently. [...] No instructions went out that she should be given priority for any vacant posts. So the decision to terminate her services rested on a misinterpretation of Regulation 4.4 and so on a mistake of law. That decision must therefore be set aside".

Reference(s)

Organization rules reference: UNESCO STAFF REGULATION 4.4

Keywords

decision; moral injury; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; interpretation; vacancy; candidate; internal candidate; qualifications; reinstatement; abolition of post; reassignment; priority; termination of employment; material damages

Consideration 15

Extract:

Many judgments - for example 1131 [...] - have declared that the Tribunal will not review an organisation's policy but only an individual decision taken to give effect thereto and the actual application of substantive rules. Its power of review is limited. It may not supplant an organisation's view with its own on such matters as policies of restructuring or redeployment of staff intended to make savings or improve efficiency. It will interfere only when a decision was taken without authority or in breach of a formal or procedural rule, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or neglected some essential fact, or constituted an abuse of authority, or drew mistaken conclusions from the factual evidence.

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1131

Keywords

reorganisation; discretion; redeployment

Considerations 17-18

Extract:

The complainant alleges that the bias which the Administration has shown towards her goes back to 1984, when she co-operated in an inquiry carried out by the Inspectorate General. One finding of the inquiry - she says - "nearly created difficulties" for the head of the division in which she was working. That official was later promoted to high office in the Organization and she alleges that countless disguised sanctions were imposed on her after the inquiry.
In the absence of direct evidence she is asking the Tribunal to infer some connection between the inquiry and later incidents and impute some ulterior and malicious motive to those who took decisions which affected her. The incidents are too remote, however, and the evidence she offers too tenuous for the Tribunal to be satisfied that her charge of bias against the Administration is sound.

Keywords

bias

Consideration 26

Extract:

The Organization must adopt one of two options. One is to reinstate her and pay her full entitlements as from 1 February 1993 plus interest but less any sums she received by reason of termination, and to grant her an appointment for two years, again at grade P.4, from the date of this judgment. If the Organization does not adopt that option, it must pay her the equivalent of her salary and allowances for four years and six months at the rates prevailing at 31 January 1993, plus interest.

Keywords

reinstatement



 
Dernière mise à jour: 27.03.2023 ^ haut