UNDT/2018/058

UNDT/2018/058, Edwards

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to UNOPS and that the Applicant did not show that UNOPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant’s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service while he was on certified sick leave.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested UNOPS’s decision to separate him from service on 31 May 2016 while he was on certified sick leave.

Legal Principle(s)

a)According to staff regulation 4.5(c ), a fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of the lenghth of service. b)Pursuant to staff rule 9.4, a temporary or fixed-term appointment expires automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment. c)Pursuant to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, administrative issuances by the Secretary-General do not apply to the separately administered funds, organs or programmes of the United Nations, unless otherwise stated therein, or unless the separately administered funds, organs and programmes have expressly accepted their applicability.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Edwards

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :