Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of six months¡¯ net base salary was far in excess of her actual loss of earnings and held that it would be adequate, fair and reasonable to award the Applicant compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, subject to a variation of the award of six months¡¯ net base salary to three months¡¯ net base salary.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the following decisions: the decision to extend her fixed-term contract for only six months; the rebuttal panel¡¯s decision to uphold her performance rating of ¡°partially met expectations¡±; and the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract and to place her on special leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decisions were receivable, with the exception of the rebuttal panel¡¯s decision, and that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation of renewal for one year, awarding compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
The purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its contractual obligations.