Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

2015-UNAT-590, Applicant

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT had before it the Secretary-General’s appeal against judgment Nos. UNDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and UNDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). UNAT held that there was no reason to upset the UNDT’s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. UNAT held, affirming UNDT’s finding, that the Applicant’s application was receivable by UNDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with UNICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, UNAT held that the award of six months’ net base salary was far in excess of her actual loss of earnings and held that it would be adequate, fair and reasonable to award the Applicant compensation of three months’ net base salary. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment, subject to a variation of the award of six months’ net base salary to three months’ net base salary.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the following decisions: the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for only six months; the rebuttal panel’s decision to uphold her performance rating of “partially met expectations”; and the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract and to place her on special leave. UNDT found that the decisions were receivable, with the exception of the rebuttal panel’s decision, and that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation of renewal for one year, awarding compensation.

Legal Principle(s)

The purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its contractual obligations.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

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