UNDT/2019/059 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

UNDT/2019/059, Gisage

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant his salary that was withheld during the period that he was unlawfully placed on ALWOP.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decisions of the Under-Secretary-General for Management to place him on Administrative Leave without Pay (ALWOP) and to extend the ALWOP for three months.

Legal Principle(s)

The mere existence of allegations against an applicant that are so sertious that, if proven, would result in separation cannot constitute exceptional circumstances. The allegations must be established through prima facie evidence. ALWOP is not meant to constitute a disciplinary sanction, but the affected staff member is usually stripped of various benefits, including the right to seek and accept other employment, and cannot leave the duty station without approval. Accordingly, it is crucial that the required investigation and disciplinary process are accelerated. If the entire process is not treated with reasonable dispatch, it is disingenuous to claim that ALWOP does not constitute a disciplinary sanction or that the principle of presumption of innocence applies.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant’s salary for the period he was on ALWOP.

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

Gisage

Entity

MONUSCO

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2017/127

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi