2016-UNAT-660

2016-UNAT-660, Toure

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. UNAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. UNAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. UNAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent’s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. UNAT held that UNDT incorrectly applied Regulation 6. 2 when it decided that the ECA Executive Secretary lacked authority to abolish the post in question. UNAT noted that the Respondent held a post of temporary nature that could be discontinued without the need for the ECA Executive Secretary to seek prior approval. UNAT held that UNDT erred in fact and law. UNAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and vacated UNDT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to abolish her post. UNDT held that the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) Executive Secretary acted beyond his authority when he unilaterally abolished the Applicant’s post. UNDT awarded compensation and moral damages to the Applicant.

Legal Principle(s)

There is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term and temporary contracts. In order for a staff member’s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances. An international Organisation has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts, and the redeployment of staff.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Toure

Entity

ECA

Case Number(s)

2015-870

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York