2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1053

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido��s appointment was not terminated. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly rejected Mr Gido��s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ģ��ƵAT held that Mr Gido did not receive termination indemnity because he was not terminated and the SLWFP decision itself did not cause any material harm to him. Ģ��ƵAT held that, as Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application, the Secretary-General was not adversely affected by the judgment and therefore the cross-appeal was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to place him on Special Leave with Full Pay (SLWFP) for two months until his team site closed as part of the drawdown and phased closure of Ģ��ƵAMID. He requested termination indemnity instead. Ģ��ƵDT found that the applicable framework for the abolishment of the post did not confer upon a staff member a right to have a termination as the modality of separation and that accordingly, there was no basis for payment of a termination indemnity. As for placing the Applicant on SLWFP, Ģ��ƵDT found the decision to place him on SLWFP as a generic cost-saving alternative to termination or a default modality for downsizing to be unlawful. However, Ģ��ƵDT found no basis for rescinding the decision to place him on SLWFP given that the SLWFP had been consumed and the employment relationship had ceased, rendering the question moot. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Termination is a separation from service which marks the end of all employment relations between a staff member and the Ģ��Ƶ. A staff member cannot request termination indemnity while at the same time keeping the advantages and benefits of remaining a staff member. Ģ��ƵDT may only award compensation if the harm in question was caused by the administrative decision challenged by the staff member.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Gido

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement