UNDT/2017/013

UNDT/2017/013, Ho

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Due diligence: A delay in payment of an entitlement under the Staff Rules and Regulations can constitute a violation of a general principle of due diligence and good faith towards staff members, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which is a structural principle of good management practice. Undue delay: In order to assess whether a delay in payment of an entitlement is undue, the Tribunal will look into the time payment would have taken had normal workflows been respected. A delay of eleven months in payment of an entitlement is undue and may warrant compensation provided the Applicant suffered any damages. Material damages: To calculate material damages resulting from a delay in payment, the Tribunal may take into account the UNORE applied at the time of the late payment, as opposed to that which applied at the time the entitlement became due. If as a result of the exchange rate applied at the time of the payment, the Applicant received more than she/he would have had the exchange rate at the time the entitlement became due been applied, and that amount exceeds any interest the Applicant might have received in application of Warren 2010-UNAT-059, she/he cannot get compensation for material damages. Moral damages: The Tribunal finds it reasonable to conclude that the fact that an Applicant had to write several emails and even had to escalate the matter by involving OSLA to finally receive payment of an entitlement resulted in stress, frustration and anxiety, warranting compensation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant resigned from the Organization effective 15 February 2015 and provided proof of relocation on 26 May 2015. Despite several follow-ups, the Organization paid the repatriation grant to the Applicant’s bank account only on 31 May 2016, after she involved the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA). The Tribunal found that the Organization failed to comply with its duty to make timely payment of the repatriation grant to the Applicant. However, it noted that she did not suffer any material damages as a consequence of that late payment because the United Nations Operational Rates of Exchange (UNORE) applied in May 2016 was higher than that of June 2015 (when the entitlement to repatriation grant became due). Hence, the Applicant received a higher amount in local currency (Malaysian ringgit) than she would have had the payment been timely. However, the Tribunal found that there was evidence that the Applicant suffered moral damages warranting compensation in the amount of USD500.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Only 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :

Date of Judgement