2021-UNAT-1097, Respondent
The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that UNDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. UNAT disagreed and found that the reason UNDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. UNAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that the initial reason for the selection was unsustainable. Therefore, in view of the incoherence in the reasons provided, UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find no rational link between the administrative decision and the reasons given for it and the information that was present before the Administration.
In the context of an impending closure of a UNDP country office, a staff member was singled out and granted an extension of his fixed-term appointment (FTA) for a shorter period in comparison to his colleagues. His contract was extended only until 28 February 2018 whereas his colleagues received extensions until June 2018. The Administration provided different explanations at different times for the disparate treatment, at one point citing budgetary limitations and at another citing the redundancy of the functions performed by the staff member. The staff member challenged the administrative decision to renew his FTA only until 28 February 2018 with UNDT, which found the decision to be unlawful because the provided reasons for not renewing the appointment were not properly based on the facts, and the Administration did not act fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with the staff member. UNDT noted that the staff member had been unfairly singled out with an extension of up to 28 February 2018 whereas all the other staff members’ appointments were extended until June 2018. UNDT rescinded the administrative decision and set in lieu compensation to two months’ net base salary.
Upon reviewing the rationality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine whether the decision is rationally connected to the purpose for which it was taken. Should a decision-maker fail to furnish adequate or coherent reasons in circumstances where a duty to do so exists, a factual presumption will arise (rebutting the general presumption of regularity) that the decision was taken without good reason. If it is shown that the reasons (being inadequate, incoherent, or irrational) do not justify the contested decision, the appropriate remedy is to set the decision aside and for the Administration to take another decision on a proper basis.
The Secretary-General’s appeal and the staff member’s cross-appeal for increased compensation are dismissed.