Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal will not order the Applicant’s reinstatement as were the original harm repaired, the Applicant’s appointment would already have ended. While the evidence before the Tribunal suggested that extensions of secondments beyond the five-year limit were possible under UNDP policy, the Tribunal was not convinced that it was probable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the renewal would have been limited to the five-year restriction and compensation was warranted for that period, less the Applicant’s actual income. Account is taken of the context of the contractual breach i.e. that it occurred after the Organization had recognised that the Applicant should be afforded whistleblower protection. Any reasonable assessment of the accepted facts is indicative of significant emotional harm and the Applicant discharges his burden of proving this harm by the descriptions in his submissions. Outcome: The Tribunal held that, but for the breach, the Applicant’s contract would have been renewed for the period up until the five year limit for such secondments under UNDP and the relevant governmental policy (1 January 2008 to 21 November 2008) and awarded payment of salary less his actual income for that period. The Tribunal awarded compensation of USD30,000 for emotional harm.