UNDT/2020/054, Williams
The Tribunal considered that the reclassification of the post encumbered by the Applicant did not follow UNOPS Regulations and Rules concerning reclassification. It consequently found that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment beyond 31 December 2017, taken only as a result of the said reclassification of the post, was unlawful. On remedies, this Tribunal found that the determination of the compensation in lieu between the minimum and the maximum provided by the Statute must take into account—so graduating the amount accordingly—the specific circumstances of the case, and in particular the type and duration of contract held by the staff member, the length of his/her service, the issues at the base of the dispute and the impact that the contested decision has on the work relationship instead, the compensation in lieu is not related at all to the economic loss suffered and to the salary of the staff member, being the latter only the parameter of the outcome of the decision on compensation and not also the precondition of the compensation (so we can have compensation in lieu also in case with no economic damage suffered). Having in mind the above-mentioned criteria, the Tribunal set the amount of compensation in lieu at three month’s net-base salary at the D-2, step I level. For the calculation of pecuniary damages, the Tribunal considered the duration of the Applicant’s secondment, the probabilities of having his contract renewed, the time that the Applicant was unemployed and the fact that he was later on employed by another UN Agency at the D-1 level. The Tribunal granted him compensation in the amount of two month’s net base salary at the D-2, step 1 level plus 22 month’s net-base salary difference between the D-2 step I level and the D-1 step II level. On moral damages, the Tribunal found that the Applicant successfully established a nexus between the harm and the illegality occurred as supported by his statement and the signed statement of his physician which indicated that the Applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Tribunal therefore awarded him compensation in the amount of USD5,000.
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond 31 December 2017 as a result of the alleged reclassification of the post he encumbered.
A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy of renewal and expires automatically without prior notice on the expiration date. The Administration is, nevertheless required to provide a reason for such a non-renewal upon the affected staff member’s request or the Tribunal’s order. As the Appeals Tribunal held in Islam, when the reason is given by the Administration for the contested decision, such reason must be supported by the facts. The Tribunal will not interfere with a genuine organizational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. However, the Administration has the duty to act fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with staff members and has the duty to follow its own regulations and rules. Compensation for harm should be supported by evidence.