¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2012/150

UNDT/2012/150, Bi Bea

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that the delay by the Respondent without reason was a ‘manifest abuse of the proceedings’ which entitled the Applicant to an award of costs. In light of said delays by the Respondent the Tribunal awarded the Applicant interest from the date of wrongful separation until the payment of compensation, and for the moral damages award, interest from the date of award by the JAB. The Tribunal held that as there is no practical difference between the terms ‘net’ and ‘net base’ pay, the Applicant is not entitled to the additional payments which amount to the ‘gross’ sum of his salary. The Applicant’s request for pension contributions was refused, the Tribunal holding that the award of compensation was to compensate him for loss of his position and was not a continuation of his employment beyond the employment date. The Organisation's contributions to the pension fund were not a supplement to the staff member’s income and could not be treated as such, rather they were nominal contributions accounted for at the relevant period.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The JAB awarded the Applicant nine month’s net salary as compensation for premature and wrongful separation; six month’s salary for the time he should have remained in service and three month’s for moral damages. The Applicant requested (i) costs for the time wasting of the Administration in forcing him to take the case, (ii) interest for the Administration’s delay in awarding him the compensation, (iii) payment of ‘net salary’ as opposed to ‘net base salary’ and (iv) the Administration’s pension contributions for the months he should have remained in service.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part
Outcome Extra Text

UNDT awarded financial compensation.

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Bi Bea
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law