¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found unsubstantiated the alleged procecural and substantive irregularities in the lateral transfer of the Applicant to the position of CEO of GPH. The Applicant was well aware of both his lateral transfer and the business model of UNITAR, which is dependent on external funding. Also, the Applicant's letter of appointment clearly stated that his appointment was limited to availability of funds.

Moreover, the Applicant argued that, instead of being placed on SWLOP until the end of his temporary appointment, his contract should have been terminated, pursuant to para. 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, and he should have received termination indemnity. However, the Tribunal noticed that para. 9(c) does not compel the Administration to terminate a staff member’s appointment due to the non availability of funds. Instead, termination is merely an option made available to the Administration dependent on the circumstances. In this case, the Organization's explanation for placing the Applicant on SLWOP under para. 9(f) instead of 9(c) was well reasoned and a lawful exercise of discretionary authority.

With respect to the second reason, the Administration met its legal obligations under paras. 3.1 and 3.2 of ST/AI/2005/3, and the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP after the exhaustion of his leave entitlements was both lawful and procedurally correct.

Finally, the Tribunal found that the Administration failed to take protective action and breached its duty of care towards the Applicant by not providing him with a proper workspace in April 2022 despite demanding him to work from the office and being made aware of his working conditions.

Notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet his burden of proof with respect to the allegation of having suffered a work-related injury as a result of not being provided with a proper workspace.
The contested decision was not tainted by bias or ill-motivation, and no remedies were awarded.