UNDP
The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.
Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety.
The Tribunal finds that the circumstances appertaining at the time of recruitment of the Applicant created a legal expectancy of renewal. The decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract was arrived at in breach of her rights to due process. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for losses incurred as a direct consequence of the non-renewal of the contract subject to the duty to mitigate.
The process leading up to the termination decision. A human resources office, such as OHR, has the obligation to ensure that its administrative decisions are taken on a proper factual basis and, if necessary, make the necessary enquiries to ensure this to protect the affected staff member’s rights. OHR failed to inform the Applicant and the relevant medical advisors about the consequences of her being declared disabled by UNSPC and about her possible alternatives. OHR also failed to delay the examination of the Applicant’s case by UNSPC. All these circumstances breached the Applicant’s rights...
Receivability: The letter of November 2007 was sent before the contested decisions had been made. The Applicant thus cannot be appealing against those decisions. The letter of 4 March 2008 was sent by the Applicant within the required two-month period but it was not addressed to the Secretary-General. If this letter were properly filed with the Assistant Administrator of UNDP, in accordance with the practice of UNDP to conduct its own administrative review, it remains that this letter could not trigger an administrative review as the Applicant did not state in clear terms that she was...
Receivability: The Applicant’s request for administrative review was made outside the mandatory time limit. In accordance with article 8.3 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning requests for administrative review or management evaluation. There is no basis in the former Staff Rules for finding that time to request an administrative review should only be calculated from the end of the involvement of the Ombudsperson. The terms of reference of the Joint Ombudsperson are inconsistent with the Staff Rules. The...
The Tribunal held that the Organization has a discretionary power to organize its work and offices. However, it reiterated the general principle that such a power is not absolute; the Organization has the authority to reorganize an office and terminate a staff member’s contract so long as that the decision is not tainted by extraneous factors or improper motives. Based on the facts and evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the decision to phase out the programme for which the Applicant had been recruited had been made on the basis of an evaluation made by external...
Submissions on new issues after the trial, re-opening of litigation: Parties will not be permitted to re-open substantive litigation after the Tribunal has already rendered its judgment on liability and is dealing solely with the issue of compensation.The Tribunal will take into account the staff member’s earnings during the relevant period of time for the purpose of calculating compensation.Interest for lost salary: Lost salary should be subject to interest on the basis that it would have been paid in separate monthly installments, with interest on each installment calculated in accordance...
It was common cause that the Applicant had committed misconduct by submitting falsified information to an outside public entity (New York City Housing Development Corporation), including a forged letter from another United Nations staff member, in order to qualify for a subsidized apartment. The only legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was proportionate to the established misconduct. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s actions amounted to serious misconduct and that it was reasonable for the Respondent to conclude that the...