±¬ÁÏÍø

Calculation of compensation. The Tribunal will determine the amount of income the Applicant is likely to have earned but for the impugned decision (pecuniary damages) and the extent of the non-pecuniary harm caused to by the decision to terminate her. Pecuniary damages. It is necessary to consider her fitness to return to work; the likely duration of the contract she could reasonably have expected to have been given; and the amount of work she would likely have been able to perform in view of her disability during the hypothetical contract period. Duration of a hypothetical contract period. It...

Outcome: For Applicant (relief to follow).

The main legal issues in this case are whether the Applicant and the Organization had entered into a contract and whether the Applicant is entitled to access to the system of justice of the United Nations. The Tribunal found that no binding contract of employment was concluded by the Applicant and the Organization. The Applicant was not a staff member at the time the decision was made not to select her for the vacancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this case. Outcome: The application was rejected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had previously resigned from a temporary appointment and was reemployed on the understanding given to her by MINUSTAH that the period of 364 days, following which she may have to take a break in service, would start running on the date of her new temporary appointment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the conditions for a suspension of action were met and ordered suspension, during the pendency of the management evaluation, of the implementation of the decision. Outcome: The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered suspension of action on the contested decision pending management evaluation.

Outcome: The Tribunal awarded the Applicant USD25,000 for the breach of his rights and the resultant harm. The Applicant also contested the decision to remove some of his functions from him and modify his reporting arrangements, to initiate and carry out a fact-finding management review in relation to his performance, and to place him on special leave with full pay (¡°SLWFP¡±). The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made the following findings. The Respondent failed to meet its obligations for assessing and managing the performance of the Applicant. The Respondent did not fully and fairly raise the performance issues at the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant failed to establish that the alleged administrative decision he sought to contest affected his legal rights. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant lacked legal standing and his application was therefore deemed not receivable.

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of ±¬ÁÏÍøMIT¡¯s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...