Ãå±±½ûµØ

2011-UNAT-120

2011-UNAT-120, Gabaldon

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before UNAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration’s withdrawal of the offer of employment. UNAT held that an offer of employment, though it does not constitute a valid employment contract, may produce legal effects if all the conditions set forth in the offer of employment were unconditionally accepted and fulfilled by the offeree in good faith. In such a situation the offeree should be regarded as a staff member for the limited purpose of seeking recourse within the internal justice system. UNAT overturned UNDT’s judgment and remanded the case to UNDT for examination of facts of the case in light of its holding.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The staff member contested the decision to withdraw his offer of employment on the basis that he had not been declared physically fit. UNDT rejected his application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction ratione personae. UNDT found that a person could not obtain the status of a staff member of the United Nations before receiving a letter of appointment signed by a duly authorized official of the Organisation.

Legal Principle(s)

A person who has not yet been issued a letter of appointment should be regarded as a staff member for the limited purpose of seeking recourse within the internal justice system provided that he/she has accepted unconditionally the terms and conditions of an offer of employment.

Outcome
Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Gabaldon
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type