UNDT/2012/025

UNDT/2012/025, Ba

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Assistant Secretary-General had conducted a fair review and had not merely rubber-stamped the Executive Secretary’s recommendation and that some of the allegations appeared well-founded so that in principle consideration of administrative leave was not improper. However, the feasibility of redeployment was not properly considered by the Executive Secretary, who had informed the ASG that there were no suitable posts available and that it would in any event be costly to redeploy the Applicant. In fact it appeared that there was a post available, to which the Applicant had applied. Cost should not be a consideration. It was clear that the Executive Secretary did not want the Applicant redeployed because of performance- related issues, and this tainted the whole decision-making process, rendering it prima facie unlawful. The matter was urgent and the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the wrong was allowed to continue. Placement on administrative leave with pay, just as without pay, is an administrative decision with a continuing legal effect. Redeployment should be the norm where a staff member is not a danger to the staff or property of the Organization, cost is not afactor to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to redeploy a staff member. Urgency means ‘pressing’ and in the case of a continuing unlawful administrative action, the urgency also continues.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant was placed on administrative leave with full pay and sought suspension of action pending management evaluation pursuant to article 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Respondent ordered to return the Applicant to her post or to redeploy her elsewhere forthwith.

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

Entity

UNECA

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2012/7

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi

Date of Judgment