Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented gender, internal candidates, or a Palestinian refugee, where more than one candidate is equally suitable.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Al Dawoud was both an internal candidate and a female, thus, a straightforward application of the provision leads to the only conclusion that she should have been given preference for selection and her chances of selection were 100 percent. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT raised the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission awarded to Ms. Al Dawoud to JOD 43,248.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s claim to compensation in lieu of rescission that would exceed the statutory cap of two-year¡¯s net base salary. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s award of 3,000 Jordanian dollars for moral damages.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part and modified Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/007.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA staff member contested the decision of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA) concerning the flawed recruitment procedure for the post of Chief, Field Infrastructure and Camp Improvement Programme.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/007 the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT) rescinded the contested decision, set JOD 21,624 as compensation in lieu of rescission, awarded JOD 3,000 in moral damages, rejected Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s requests for an investigation and for a written apology, and reaffirmed its earlier referral of the D/ICIP to the Commissioner?General for possible action to enforce accountability.
Ms. Al Dawoud filed an appeal in which she contends that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT: (i) erred as matter of fact and of law in its determination of compensation in lieu of rescission, and (ii) erred as a matter of fact in its determination of the quantum of compensation for moral harm.
Legal Principle(s)
The purpose of compensation in lieu of rescission is to put the staff member in the same position had the contested administrative decision not been made. Compensation in lieu, therefore, turns on the pecuniary or economic equivalent of rescission. It is calculated by the appropriate assessment of financial entitlements that would normally result from retrospective reinstatement. The exceptionality of a case only becomes relevant when compensation in lieu falls short of reflecting the full economic equivalent of rescission because of the statutory cap of two-years¡¯ net base salary.
Compensation is not punitive or meant to reflect the egregiousness of the conduct which caused the harm. Egregious conduct may in some cases exacerbate the harm suffered and thereby be reflected indirectly in the level of compensation.