2019-Ģ��ƵAT-909

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by Ģ��ƵDT and the award that Ģ��ƵAT considered ought to have been made. Ģ��ƵAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating evidence to the Appellant��s own testimony and thus, the evidence did not meet the evidentiary standard. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal and modified the Ģ��ƵDT judgment to award 24 months�� net base salary (with interest) as compensation for the unlawful termination of her appointment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested her termination and the decision to exclude her from the comparative review exercise involving warehouse assistants. Ģ��ƵDT held that the decision to exclude the Applicant from the comparative review, which formed the basis of the decision to terminate her employment, was tainted with bad faith and improper motive. Ģ��ƵDT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant��s employment was unlawful. Ģ��ƵDT awarded six months�� net base salary as compensation and referred the conduct of one of the managers to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

Legal Principle(s)

Ģ��ƵAT ordinarily will be reluctant to interfere with an award of compensation by the Ģ��ƵDT but is entitled to do so where (i) there has been an irregularity or misdirection; (ii) no sound or reasonable basis exists for the award; or (iii) there is a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by Ģ��ƵDT and the award Ģ��ƵAT considers ought to have been made. Where there is a substantial variation or a striking disparity between a compensation award made by Ģ��ƵDT, and the award Ģ��ƵAT considers ought to have been made, Ģ��ƵAT should interfere on the ground of a factual error, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Where retaliation against a staff member takes the form of termination of employment, and reinstatement is neither likely nor practical, then substantial awards of compensation will be appropriate.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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

Haroun

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement