UNDT/2009/083

UNDT/2009/083, Bye

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In the present case, the Administration must be deemed to have made good faith efforts to identify a position for the Applicant, for it actually offered him an adequate position. For a position to be considered adequate, it is not sufficient that it is at the same level than the previous position of the concerned staff member. It is also required that it be in line with his/her skills, qualifications and experience. Anyone alleging that a given decision was based on improper motivation bears the burden of proof. Outcome: The application was rejected. UNADT Judgment No. 910 (1998)

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant’s post was abolished since the host state of the country office that he headed decided to close the office. After a temporary assignment, he was offered a position at the same level he held (P-5) in another country office located in the region of the Applicant’s expressed preference (Latin America) with funding secured for one year. The Applicant declined this offer pointing out that he would not be the head of mission but the latter’s deputy. Consequently, his fixed-term appointment was terminated. In the meantime, he had applied for three positions as chief of mission in Latin America, unsuccessfully.

Legal Principle(s)

Former staff rule 109.1 (c) has been interpreted in the past to impose on the Administration a duty to make good faith efforts to find alternative employment for a staff member whose post has been abolished. However, it is questionable that this provision applies to holders of a fixed-term appointment, as its wording clearly refers to staff members with a permanent appointment.

Outcome

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Bye

Entity

UNOG

Case Number(s)

UNDT/GVA/2009/026

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Geneva