Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ

2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1399

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal plans made in reliance on that consensually varied termination date. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT observed that there was a cause and effect relationship between the breach and the harm or loss. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the harmful effects on him were disproportionate to the benefits that WMO achieved by insisting on the continuation of his employment against his will for a further three months. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the Secretary-General was estopped from acting contrary to and without consideration of the legitimate expectation that the staff member had of how and when his employment would end and in reliance of which he had made personal and professional arrangements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had not committed any errors of fact or law in its Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2022/134.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member contested the decision to rescind the termination of his appointment. The contested decision resulted in his separation from WMO based on the expiration, instead of the termination, of his fixed-term appointment.

In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2022/134, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT granted the application and rescinded the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT concluded that the staff member was entitled to rely on the notice of termination of his fixed-term appointment. It re-set the lawful date of his separation from service, declared his entitlement to termination indemnities and separation entitlements, directed that he be paid in-lieu compensation in the amount of ten months¡¯ salary and awarded moral damages of USD 5,000.

Legal Principle(s)

An employer has a duty to organize its operations so as not to imperil the health and safety of its staff.

Discretionary organizational flexibility in management must be exercised with moderation, lawfully, rationally, correctly in a procedural sense, and proportionately. Such decisions may not be exercised ignoring the relevant or taking account of the irrelevant. It is not for the Tribunals to substitute their decisions on administrative matters for those of the Organization properly taken in the exercise of its discretion.

In an employment relationship for which the United Nations has adopted a combined or fused statutory and contractual model and in which both parties also have express and implied rights and obligations, the notion of subservience is no longer appropriate. The employment relationship, with regard to a variation that results in prolonging it, is governed by contract and contractual principles apply, including that such variation is by consent and not unilateral.

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT 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.