¹ú²úAV

UNAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. UNAT held that there was no error in this regard. UNAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, UNRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant’s claims for loss of opportunity. UNAT held that, in view of the large discretion afforded to UNRWA DT in matters related to compensation, UNAT deferred to UNRWA DT when it determined compensatory damages to cover loss of earning and loss of opportunities. UNAT held that, as it found that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award, which UNAT found to be fair and reasonable, UNAT would not interfere with the award. UNAT held that the Appellant’s submissions that UNRWA DT erred as a matter of law when it did not included entitlements in its awarded compensation were misconceived, as there was a two-year cap on compensatory damages, noting that UNRWA DT had not recorded any reasons for considering that this was an exceptional case warranting an award higher than two years’ net base salary. Noting the two years’ net base salary cap, UNAT held that it was irrelevant that, by his own calculation the Appellant may have earned up to USD 98,576, a sum equivalent to more than four years’ net base salary. On the Appellant’s claim that the award for moral damages of USD 5,000 was paltry compared to other awards for non-pecuniary damages by UNAT, UNAT reiterated that the assessment of compensation was done on a case-by-case basis and according to the discretion of each Tribunal. UNAT held the UNRWA DT did not commit any error of law in its assessment of the compensation award for material and moral damages which were fair and reasonable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of UNRWA DT.