¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2017/067

UNDT/2017/067, Nakase

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that the uncontested evidence before it was that the General-Assembly endorsed the Secretary-General’s recommendation for the abolishment of 80 Language Assistant posts, including the one encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal found and held that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was lawful as it was a proper implementation by the Secretary-General of the General Assembly’s decision. In his submissions, the Applicant had indicated that the Organization had abolished his post, but later hired him as an Individual Consultant (IC). He contended that the purpoted abolition of his post was in fact a conversion of his fixed-term contract into an IC contract. On this claim, the Tribunal held that, in light of the General Assembly’s decision, the issue of hiring the Applicant on an IC contract was not relevant for the question of legality of abolition of his post.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

MONUSCO’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment and to separate him from service on the grounds of abolition of his post.

Legal Principle(s)

Acts prefatory to abolition of post have no direct impact on the conditions of employment of a staff member. Acts such as determination by the Secretary-General on which posts should be submitted for abolition do not constitute decisions reviewable by the Tribunal. However, an applicant may challenge an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring once that decision has been made if it has a direct impact on his or her terms and conditions of appointment. An administrative decision taken as a result of the decision of the General Assembly is lawful and the Secretary-General cannot be held accountable for executing such a decision.

Outcome
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.

Applicants/Appellants
Nakase
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :