Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual relationship with the Organization that bound the Organization to behave in keeping with the principle of good faith, and to act fairly, justly and transparently in its dealings with him.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was estopped from making the point on appeal that the staff member was not entitled to a period of at least two months to prepare for relocation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that communications related to the staff member¡¯s periods of duly authorized absences did not have the effect of suspending the recruitment process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred when it held that the Organization had a legal obligation to wait for the exhaustion of his leave.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Administration had not erred in its exercise of discretion. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had showed flexibility in meaningful consultations with the staff member in what appeared to have been an earnest attempt to agree on a convenient date for him for reporting for duty. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Organization had not erred in withdrawing the offer of appointment when the prospective parties failed to agree on the suitable date.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested decisions related to his non-appointment to the post of Human Rights Officer in OHCHR¡¯s Regional Office for the Pacific in Suva, Fiji, including not granting him additional time to assume the post he was selected for and withdrawing the offer of appointment.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/046, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the application, rescinded the contested decisions, and ordered compensation in lieu of rescission.
The Secretary-General appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The unconditional acceptance and the fulfillment, by the recipient of the offer of employment, of the conditions specified in the offer results in a quasi-contract, with corresponding obligations on the Administration to behave in keeping with the principle of good faith, and to act fairly, justly and transparently in its dealings with him or her.
Judgments are not only read according to their explicit words, but also by way of reasonable inferences revealing the implicit reasoning of the Judge deciding the case.
Communications related to new appointments should not be considered official activities.
There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. If the management is able to minimally show that the candidature was given full and fair consideration, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. The burden of proof then shifts to the appellant who must show through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of promotion.
Unless agreed otherwise, the Organization is best placed to decide on the time of reporting for duty. Although reasonable consultations with the candidate could prove to be necessary to ensure a balance between the organizational needs and the personal and professional circumstances of the candidate, the Organization is under no obligation to surrender its own needs in order to adapt to the candidate¡¯s circumstances. It is up to the Secretary-General to exercise this wide discretion, and the Tribunals may not substitute themselves for the Secretary-General in this regard, as long as the Administration¡¯s exercise of discretion was legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate.
Administrative discretion is not required to result in optimal decisions or perfect outcomes.