51�Թ�

Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-UNAT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-UNAT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member’s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The UNAT also determined that the UNDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years’ net base salary. In this regard, the UNAT emphasized that the UNDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member’s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

UNAT disagreed and reversed the UNDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. UNAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

UNAT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-UNAT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-UNAT-358 (Longone) and 2013-UNAT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members’ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. UNAT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...

The Tribunal, referring to O’Hanlon, (which was not before the UNDT), stated that, “This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the 51�Թ� Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O’Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in its determination. UNAT held that there was no legal basis for UNDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. UNAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to UNDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. UNAT held that as of 30 June 2009, UNAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

UNAT considered an appeal of judgment No. UNDT/2012/131. UNAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. UNDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. UNDT/2012/129 and judgment No. UNDT/2012/130. UNAT held that, since it had rescinded the UNDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. UNAT held that it's reasoning in Malmström et al....

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. UNAT held that judgment No. 2013-UNAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the UNDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; UNAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...