2010-Ģ��ƵAT-092

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT award of compensation for loss of earnings for seven months from the date of the staff member��s separation from service to the date of the Ģ��ƵDT judgment (as an alternative to the order for reinstatement of the staff member) plus an additional amount of two years�� net base salary. The Secretary-General maintained that, while the total of these amounts exceeded the compensation limit of two years�� net base salary, Ģ��ƵDT did not particularize any reasons to justify an increased award under Article 10.5(b) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute. Ģ��ƵAT held that Article 10.5(b) does not require a formulaic articulation of aggravating factors; rather that it requires evidence of aggravating factors that warrant higher compensation. In addition to finding that the staff member was unfairly dismissed for serious misconduct, Ģ��ƵDT found evidence of blatant harassment and an accumulation of aggravating factors that supported an increased award. Ģ��ƵAT found no error in law or in fact concerning Ģ��ƵDT��s finding that this was an exceptional case justifying the amount of compensation awarded.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The former staff member contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service without notice. Ģ��ƵDT found that the Secretary-General had unfairly dismissed the former staff member and ordered reinstatement with loss of earnings up to the date of reinstatement. In the alternative, Ģ��ƵDT ordered compensation for loss of earnings up to the date of judgment and an additional amount of compensation of two years�� net base salary.

Legal Principle(s)

In exceptional cases, compensation may be ordered exceeding two years�� net base salary. Article 10.5(b) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute does not require a formulaic articulation of aggravating factors; rather it requires evidence of aggravating factors that warrant higher compensation.

Outcome

Appeal 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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Mmata

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement