UNDT/2019/052

UNDT/2019/052, Aboua

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNDT held that the Applicant had not met the evidentiary burden of showing that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his appointment and that conversely, the evidence showed that, in accordance with its Transition Plan, the Mission had no intention of maintaining the Applicant’s post and proceeded with the downsizing. UNDT held that the Report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions did not require UNOCI to renew the Applicant’s appointment, neither did it alter UNOCI’s obligation to implement the phased drawdown in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2284. UNDT held that the reasons given by the Respondent for not conducting a comparative review of the Applicant’s post were sound and in line with the announced Mission policy. Recalling that there was no legal notice requirement with respect to fixed-term appointments, UNDT held that notice of one month was entirely appropriate, considering the fixed-term nature and short duration of the appointment, the context of the downsizing and the fact that the Applicant was a national staff member who was not exposed to a total uprooting. UNDT held that the Applicant did not make a showing of improper motives. UNDT held that the Applicant’s claim for termination indemnity had no basis. UNDT rejected the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment after his post was abolished due to a restructuring.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT will not interfere with a genuine organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. The Administration has the duty to act fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members and any procedure adopted must be in accordance with relevant rules and policy. UN staff members have no expectation of renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The evidentiary burden of providing a legitimate expectancy of renewal lies with the applicant, who is required to show that the Administration made an express and firm commitment in writing to extend his or her fixed-term appointment. The availability of budgetary funds only authorises the Mission’s expenditures in connection with certain posts but does not create a right on the part of the incumbent to have the post retained. There is no legal notice requirement with respect to fixed-term appointments, which expire automatically on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment.

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
Aboua
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Applicable Law