As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-UNAT-183, the Applicant’s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal’s pronouncement in Warren 2010-UNAT-059 that “the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations”. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant’s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from the final amount of compensation to be paid as alternative to rescission (see also Koh UNDT/2010/040; Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012; Cohen 2011-UNAT-131). Placement of staff on abolished posts: Article 101.3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that “[t]he paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.” In its resolution 51/226 (para. 5), the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General “to announce all vacancies so as to give equal opportunity to all qualified staff and to encourage mobility.” However, there are particular rules that apply tocertain categories of staff—including staff on continuing appointments—who are affected by abolition of posts. As lex specialis, such rules apply to and govern the applicable situations. In particular, staff rule 9.6(e) requires that the staff on continuing posts affected by abolition of posts be retained on a priority basis as compared to fixed-term staff (although, pursuant to staff rule 13.1, staff holding permanent appointments are retained in preference to staff on continuing appointments). Staff regulation 1.2(c) and secs. 11.1(b) and 11.2 of ST/AI/2010/3 allow the Organization to transfer and assign staff members affected by the abolition of posts to suitable positions outside the normal selection process. As a staff member on a continuing appointment at the relevant times and in need of placement, the Applicant should not have been made to compete for positions against other staff members on fixed-term or temporary appointments or against external candidates (El-Kholy UNDT/2016/102 (under appeal); Hassanin UNDT/2016/181; Tiefenbacher UNDT/2016/183). Although he did not have a continuing appointment at the time his post was abolished, at the time of the termination of his continuing appointment he was on a continuing appointment and in need of placement due to the earlier abolition of his post, and thus enjoyed the protections afforded by staff rule 9.6(e). What was required was a determination as to whether the Applicant was “suitable” for an available post. During this exercise under staff rule 9.6(e), it would be a material irregularity to place the Applicant as a staff member on a continuing appointment in the same pool as fixed-term or temporary staff members or external candidates.Requirement of good faith and fair dealing: There is a general requirement that the Organization act in good faith with regard to its staff members (see, e.g., James UNDT/2009/025 (affirmed in James 2010-UNAT-009 on liability, but setting aside the compensation award); Shashaa UNDT/2009/034; D’Hooge UNDT/2010/044; Obdeijn UNDT/2011/032 (affirmed in Obdeijn 2010-UNAT-201, with variation of compensation award)). As the Tribunal stated in Gaskins UNDT/2010/119 (not appealed), each employment contract has an implied term of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee, which means that both parties must act responsibly and in good faith (see also Goddard UNDT/2010/196)Termination during paternity or maternity leave: How an employer deals with staff on maternity and paternity leave speaks volumes about the working conditions and the working environment. Maternity and paternity leave signifies a particularly vulnerable time in an employee’s life. When staff members use their entitlement to a maternity or paternity leave, they place a lot of reliance on predictability of income and access to health insurance. It is also difficult for staff members in such situations to present their position or mount an urgent legal challenge to such terminations. This explains why particular care should be taken with regard to staff members who exercise their rights to maternity and paternity leave. In this regard, in the Tribunal’s view, administrative instruction ST/AI/2005/2 requires further revisions to address more fully the various types of issues that may arise. The Administration should also be mindful that terminations during maternity or paternity leave immediately raise concerns as to whether they were a result of improper discrimination or retaliation for staff taking time off to care for their newborn children. Such things have been known to happen in the history of employer-employee relations, and they shall not be tolerated in a working environment such as the United Nations. There is no evidence in this case that the Applicant was discriminated against nor that the contested decision was influenced by his paternity leave status. However, needless to say, any discrimination of this sort would be unacceptable.Relief: As the Appeals Tribunal stated in Bowen 2011-UNAT-183, the Applicant’s termination indemnity should be taken into account when awarding compensation. This is consistent with the Appeals Tribunal’s pronouncement in Warren 2010-UNAT-059 that “the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations”. Therefore, as both the termination indemnity and the payment in lieu of notice stemmed from the improper termination of the Applicant’s appointment, these sums shall be deducted from the final amount of compensation to be paid as alternative to rescission (see also Koh UNDT/2010/040; Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012; Cohen 2011-UNAT-131).Duty to mitigate: Both the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal have said that there is a duty to mitigate losses and the Tribunal should take into account the staff member’s earnings, if any, during the relevant period of time for the purpose of calculating compensation (see, e.g., Tolstopiatov UNDT/2011/012; Mmata 2010-UNAT-092).