2016-UNAT-614

2016-UNAT-614, Roberts

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. UNAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. UNAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. UNAT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. UNAT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it did not configure abuse of process. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Accountability referral: The Dispute Tribunal referred the case to the Secretary-General to consider any appropriate action to ensure that proper oversight and accountability measures are in place, with particular reference to the role of the CRP in ensuring procedural propriety in decision making within its remit. The referral for accountability was not appealed and the UNAT did not take a decision on it.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. UNDT found that the Administration had unlawfully applied an informal and not promulgated policy denying conversion to a permanent appointment to any staff member who had a disciplinary measure in his or her official records, regardless of the timing and the gravity of the underlying misconduct. UNDT found that the Administration’s assessment of the Applicant’s suitability for conversion to permanent appointment was not aligned with the “Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered as at 30 June 2009” (2009 Conversion Guidelines), which require the Administration to take into account two criteria (timing and gravity) in determining whether a staff member is suitable for conversion. UNDT ordered the rescission of the decision to deny the conversion and the retroactive conversion of the Applicant’s appointment to a permanent appointment. UNDT also awarded the Applicant compensation for moral damages.

Legal Principle(s)

An appeal must be filed within 60 calendar days of the receipt of a UNDT judgment. The filing of the appeal has the effect of suspending the execution of the judgment. In the absence of an appeal, the UNDT judgment becomes executable following the expiry of the time provided for an appeal. Either party may then apply to UNDT for an order for execution of the judgment. However, there is no law that prevents a UNDT order for payment from being effected before it becomes executable, which is what was done in the present case.

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.