Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of bias against the staff member. Therefore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the rescission of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, held that the compensation awarded in lieu of rescission, coupled with the award of lost salary at the upgraded P-5 level, was excessive considering that, even if selected, the chance for the staff member was to be appointed for one year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT partly upheld the appeal and modified the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to reduce the compensation in lieu granted and vacated the award of compensation for substantive and procedural irregularities.
Accountability referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the referral for accountability.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to select her for the upgraded post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant¡¯s non-selection for the upgraded post and her subsequent separation from the Organisation were ¡°motivated by bias, procedural breaches, retaliation, and other improper motives¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered rescission of the contested decision, the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement and deployment in the next available P-5 country representative position, or a similar post, together with payment of salary at the upgraded P-5 level since the time of her separation. In the alternative to reinstatement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation in lieu. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also awarded compensation for substantive and procedural irregularities.
Legal Principle(s)
Under Article 9. 1(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT may only order compensation for harm, supported by evidence, which shall normally not exceed the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT may, however, in exceptional cases order the payment of higher compensation for harm, supported by evidence, and shall provide the reasons for that decision. Similarly, Article 10. 5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute provides that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may only order compensation for harm, supported by evidence, which shall normally not exceed the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may, however, in exceptional cases order the payment of higher compensation for harm, supported by evidence, and shall provide the reasons for that decision.