UNDT/2012/019

UNDT/2012/019, Debebe

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal agreed that the Applicant had had a legitimate expectation of promotion but found that the granting of SPA compensated him adequately in the circumstances. It is not possible for the Tribunal to order promotion from General Service to any other category as this has been specifically prohibited by the General Assembly. The Applicant’s reliance on UNAdT 1169 Abebe was misplaced because in that case the Respondent was not granted a promotion, rather it found that Abebe was eligible for promotion. The distinction is important. However, the Tribunal did find that the Applicant was entitled to fair and equal treatment and that the Respondent’s handling of the Applicant’s case, breached that entitlement. It was most unfair that other staff around the Applicant at ECA should have been seen to have benefitted by “errors” whilst the Applicant did not. This created an atmosphere of unhappiness and sense of inequality which should not be condoned.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant had successfully brought a claim before the JAB in respect of his non- promotion from G-7 to L-1 (professional) category despite the post he encumbered having been reclassified in that way. The JAB had found that he had a legitimate expectation of promotion should have been remunerated at the higher level and recommended that the Administration promote the Applicant to the L-1 level against the post on which he was serving, and be compensated for the difference between his G-7 salary and the L-1 level from the date of classification. The Respondent did grant the Applicant SPA to the L-1 level but did not promote him to that position. The Applicant appealed the decision not to promote him from GS-7 to L-1.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

The Respondent is to pay the Applicant damages for distress in the sum of four months’ net base salary at the L-1 level.

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
Debebe
Entity
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type