Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual entitlements or his procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in awarding moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and vacated the award of moral damages.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant filed an application with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal complaining about the circumstances surrounding his promotion to the P-5 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the cancellation of the second selection exercise and its subsequent recommencement were appropriate and lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, however, that there were excessive and unjustifiable delays in concluding the selection process and that the Organisation consistently and without just cause failed to respond to the Applicant¡¯s reasonable requests for information and action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the delays and failures to respond to the Applicant¡¯s communications amounted to maladministration and caused the Applicant emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation for moral damages.
Legal Principle(s)
Damages for moral injury may arise from a breach of the employee¡¯s substantive entitlements from his or her contract of employment and/or from a breach of the procedural due process entitlements therein guaranteed or where there is evidence produced of harm, stress or anxiety caused to the employee which can be directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his or her substantive or procedural rights. When a promotion or selection process is challenged by one or more candidates, the Administration has a duty to determine whether the candidates¡¯ complaints require that the selection process must be re-started or can continue, and this may cause delay in the process; however, when the delay is not a breach of a candidate¡¯s substantive or procedural rights, it cannot be the basis for an award of moral damages. To require the Administration to respond to each inquiry about the status of a promotional selection exercise, would unduly interfere with the Administration¡¯s duty to fully consider candidates¡¯ complaints about alleged deficiencies in the selection process and to correct such deficiencies.