Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no room for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to substitute its decision for that of the Agency unless the Agency¡¯s decision was unreasonable or disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in the present case, there was no allegation of an unreasonable or disproportionate exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding special allowances. With respect to the compensation for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the circumstances of the present cases did not qualify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to invoke its statutory jurisdiction to award such damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously affirmed awards of moral damages for a ¡°fundamental breach,¡± which involved findings or allegations of actions including: ¡°numerous substantive and procedural irregularities,¡± ¡°reckless abuse of power,¡± ¡°deliberate manipulation of the Organisation¡¯s processes,¡± or significant violations of pertinent provisions regarding highly consequential decisions, such as terminations and transfers to other posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the inconsequential ¡°anomalies¡± found in the present case did not reach such a level of severity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT also erred when it awarded compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicants contested the Agency¡¯s decision to qualify their respective posts as Messenger Porter instead of Messenger A. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the Applicants had the contractual status of Messenger Porters and did not find any merit in their assertion that they believed to be Messenger As. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the Applicants had been asked to perform tasks there were not in their contract descriptions but noted that the Applicants were partly to blame because the situation was quickly rectified once they complained to HAGSS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that this quick reaction clearly demonstrated that the assigned duties were not appropriate for Messenger Porters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that if the Applicants¡¯ requests to requalify their posts were intended for them to have fewer duties, their demand had already been granted when the extra duties were removed, noting that both posts had the same grade level and the same salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT awarded the applications in part and awarded special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages to the Applicants.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT may only substitute its decision, regarding special allowances, for that of the Agency if the Agency¡¯s decision was unreasonable, unfair, illegal, irrational, procedurally incorrect, or disproportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT may only award moral damages if a fundamental breach has occurred.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
No relief ordered; No relief ordered.