Ãå±±½ûµØ

2023-UNAT-1367, Mihai Nastase

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The UNAT was of the view that, as the UNDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The UNAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record also showed that the abolition of particular posts depended on the requirements of the clients of UNOPS. Lastly, the fact that he had been placed on performance improvement plan was not per se an indication of bias, or clear and convincing evidence that the rationale to abolish his post was unreasonable.

The UNAT noted that it was immaterial whether the rationale for the contested decision had been formulated in writing after taking that decision; it provided no compelling indication of any impropriety.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2022/061.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A former staff member contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment.

In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/061, the UNDT dismissed his application. The UNDT accepted that the decision to abolish the P-3 post, encumbered by the staff member, instead of a P-2 post, had been rational and that the Administration had properly exercised its discretion. The UNDT found that the staff member had been given fair and adequate consideration and that he had failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of improper motive or bias sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity.

Legal Principle(s)

Restructuring may justify the termination of employment on grounds of operational requirements. The abolition of a post resulting from a reorganization or effectuated on the grounds of operational requirements therefore usually constitutes a valid substantive reason for non-renewal of an appointment or not extending a fixed-term appointment.

A non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularity or that the staff member had a legitimate expectation of renewal or that the decision was arbitrary or motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive.

The UNDT should not interfere with an organizational restructuring exercise unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised unreasonably, unlawfully or without due process. If the Administration is able to minimally show that the staff member was given full and fair consideration, then the evidentiary burden shifts to the staff member to show that he or she was subject to an act of unreasonableness or unfairness.

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