¹ú²úAV

2015-UNAT-525

2015-UNAT-525, Flores

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. UNAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores provided the names of witnesses in her response to the charges and that there was no action taken by the Administration to interview such witnesses, UNAT held that the failure of the Administration in this regard was an undeniable breach of Ms Flores’ due process rights. On the issue of the UNDT’s decision not to order reinstatement due to the forthcoming expiration of Ms Flores’ appointment, UNAT recalled that unless the Administration had made an express promise, abused its discretion or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal was not unlawful. UNAT held that Ms Flores did not provide a compelling argument warranting any adjustment to the quantum of compensation. UNAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Flores contested the decision to separate her from service without termination indemnity as a disciplinary measure for misconduct in the form of fraud. UNDT found for Ms Flores, rescinded the decision, ordered the removal of any references to the sanction from her file, and set an award as an alternative to rescission.

Legal Principle(s)

The trial judge is best placed to assess the nature and evidential value of the information being provided by an applicant to UNDT to justify an award of damages, including pecuniary damages.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.