Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Settlement Agreement was properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for its enforcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that there was no special procedure prescribed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute or Rules of Procedure or even by any of its Practice Directions for an applicant to bring an application for the enforcement of a Settlement Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was bad faith on part of the Respondent in regard to the Settlement Agreement by the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that: a. The MONUSCO Administration exhibited bad faith during the negotiations by not informing the Applicant until after he signed the Settlement Agreement that his post was affected in the restructuring; b. The MONUSCO Administration¡¯s bad faith tainted the spirit and intent of the Settlement Agreement; c. The Respondent breached the intent of the Settlement Agreement by not renewing the Applicant¡¯s contract beyond 31 July 2015; and d. Based on the request for extension of appointment dated 20 August 20149 , which was signed by Mr. Maia and recommended an extension of the Applicant¡¯s FTA for one year from 31 October 2014, and the emails from MONUSCO HR regarding the extension of the Applicant¡¯s FTA, the Applicant¡¯s appointment should have been renewed at least until 30 October 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the following remedies: a. Rescission of the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment beyond 30 June 2015; b. Payment of the Applicant¡¯s net base salary from 1 August 2015 to 31 October 2015; c. Compensation in the amount of one month¡¯s net base salary for the procedural irregularity of separating the Applicant on 31 July 2015 instead of 30 October 2015; and d. Amendment of the Applicant¡¯s e-PASes in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant challenged the Respondent¡¯s decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment (FTA). This case was registered as Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095. In another application the Applicant challenged: a) the decision dated 11 September 2015 on his complaint of prohibited conduct against three senior United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) staff members; b) the decision dated 14 January 2016 on his second complaint against the former MONUSCO Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral; and c) the decision dated 3 August 2015 taken by the Director of the Ethics Office that the Applicant did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. That case was registered as Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2016/023.
Legal Principle(s)
It cannot be denied that in any employment relationship between a staff member and the Organization, the staff member is the party in a weaker position especially because he/she is not privy to the considerations behind the decisions that affect him/her. In judging the validity of an exercise of discretion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT can examine, among other things, if the decision is absurd or perverse.