Judgment No. 2742
Decision
1. The Secretary-General's decision of 4 October 2006 is set aside insofar as it relates to the complainant's appeal with respect to her reassignment.
2. WMO shall pay the complainant material damages in the amount of 50,000 Swiss francs, moral damages in the amount of 20,000 francs and costs in the amount of 8,000 francs. All amounts are to be paid within 28 days of the delivery of this judgment.
3. The claim of harassment is stood over for further consideration in conjunction with the complaints filed with respect to the Secretary-General's decision of 28 September 2007. Costs relating to the claim of harassment are reserved.
4. The complaint is otherwise dismissed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
"General principle dictates that a person cannot litigate the same issue in separate proceedings, much less in concurrent proceedings."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; settlement out of court; general principle; difference; request by a party; right
Consideration 34
Extract:
"It was said in Judgment 2510 that 'an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff'. The word 'necessarily' in that statement indicates that that power will be implied even if it is not expressly conferred by the relevant regulations. However, that power cannot be implied if it is contrary to the regulations."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2510
Keywords
organisation; written rule; breach; interpretation; creation of post; abolition of post; reorganisation; discretion
Consideration 37
Extract:
"There is no inevitable inconsistency between 'strengthening' a service and restructuring it. However, there is an inconsistency when restructuring involves the abolition of what is intended to be strengthened."
Keywords
reorganisation; consequence; discontinuance
Consideration 41
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) and asks to be reinstated in her former post. "Although the decision to reassign the complainant to the post of Chief of IAS was taken without authority, it does not follow that she should be reinstated in her former post. That post was lawfully abolished [...]. However, she is entitled to substantial damages notwithstanding that her reassignment was to a post at the same grade."
Keywords
decision; grade; post; reinstatement; abolition of post; reassignment; procedural flaw; consequence; request by a party; material damages
Consideration 44
Extract:
"The Tribunal issues binding orders, not recommendations as sought by the complainant. Additionally, the Tribunal has no power to order a party to apologise."
Keywords
claim; receivability of the complaint; recommendation; competence of tribunal; vested competence
| 
