Ãå±±½ûµØ

2012-UNAT-215, Cabrera

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Cabrera’s cross-appeal centred on the issue of whether placing a staff member on SLWFP violates their due process rights. UNAT noted that, in this case, UNDT created a new class of special leave, where the staff member was actually suspended with full pay. UNAT did not agree with the Secretary-General’s contention that UNDT erred in concluding that the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ investigation was not a preliminary investigation, as Mr Cabrera was put on leave using all the reasons under which he could be suspended. UNAT found that UNDT correctly held that Mr Cabrera was entitled to all the due process rights listed in paragraphs 6 to 9 of ST/AI/371 and, therefore, he was entitled to compensation for the violation of these rights. UNAT also found that, in Mr Cabrera’s circumstances, justice would be served if compensation was reduced from two years’ net base pay to 10 months’ net base pay with interest on the usual terms. UNAT held that Mr Cabrera’s request for an award of costs was not sustainable. UNAT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal in part and reduced the compensation awarded to Mr Cabrera to 10 months’ net base pay.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Previous decision: Mr Cabrera contested the Secretary-General’s decision not to follow the Joint Appeals Board’s (JAB) recommendation that he be compensated in the amount of 3 years net base salary, following his placement on Special Leave With Full Pay (SLWFP). UNDT found in favour of Mr Cabrera and awarded him two years’ net base salary.

Legal Principle(s)

The initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not a pre-requisite for putting a staff member on special leave. A charge of misconduct is a prerequisite for suspension of a staff member with or without pay.

Outcome
Appeal granted in part

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
Cabrera
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type