UNDT/2010/114, Alauddin
The Organization cannot with propriety resort to reliance on particular provisions in its Rules and Regulations which were arguably inconsistent with a representation merely because the Rules and Regulations are referred to as a whole in the Letter of Appointment. Not only was the respondent in breach of its contract with the applicant by deciding arbitrarily and capriciously not to renew his contract (as had been admitted) but it was in breach of the contract by not renewing it in accordance with the undertaking to do so if the applicant’s performance was satisfactory. The applicant’s performance was more than satisfactory and he had a right to renewal, not merely to having the decision as to renewal made by a proper process. Outcome: The respondent was in breach of its contractual obligations to the applicant in refusing to renew his contract as agreed whilst his performance was satisfactory. Reinstatement or compensation held to be warranted and to be agreed by parties or determined by another judge.
The applicant challenged the non-extension of his contract and the requirement that he resign from his government in order to be re-integrated into UNDP. In an earlier ruling (UNDT/2010/114), it was held that the respondent had imposed conditions upon reappointment that were unjustified and that a binding agreement to employ the applicant was constituted by the letter of offer and effectuated by the letter of appointment, with the result that the two documents together constituted the contract of employment. This judgment concerns the determination on the issue of liability and the extent of the breach in contract.
N/A