��ż���

Receivability What is the contested decision? The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the decision to grant her a permanent appointment, as argued by the Respondent. Rather, the Applicant contested the decision not to “provide her with an effective remedy” after having been granted a permanent appointment with retroactive effect to 30 June 2009, namely not being given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, not being granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity. Does the principle of “res judicata” apply? The Applicant requests to be given employment against the permanent appointment or, in the alternative, to be granted compensation equivalent to the termination indemnity that would have been paid to her had her appointment been terminated on the date of her separation. As the issue had never been reviewed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the principle of res judicata does not apply and that the application was receivable. Merits What was the modality of the Applicant’s separation from service? The Tribunal found that the Applicant was separated from service by way of her resignation. Was the Applicant compelled to resign because of the alleged job insecurity? While the Tribunal understood the influence that job insecurity may have had on her decision-making in 2013, there was no evidence to support her claim that she was compelled to resign or that she decided to resign from service because the Administration failed to grant her a permanent appointment in 2012. The evidence showed that the Applicant chose to resign to explore other professional options and this decision is only imputable to her. Indeed, she could have continued working in her position regardless of the nature of her appointment. What is the effect of the delay in granting the Applicant a permanent appointment? The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was informed of the decision not to grant her a permanent appointment on 31 January 2012. She contested that decision in the formal system of administration of justice starting with her request for management evaluation on 30 March 2012. However, she did not wait for the judicial outcome prior to her resignation in June 2013. While it is unfortunate that it took five years for the Administration to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment, by resigning in June 2013—that is before a final decision on her claim was made—she put herself in a situation in which the implementation of the March 2017 decision to grant her a permanent appointment effective retroactively to 30 June 2009 is complex. Her case was, in this regard, exceptional. What is an “effective remedy” in the Applicant’s situation? The Tribunal found that since the Applicant accepted unconditionally the offer of a permanent appointment made to her in March 2017, she had a valid contract with UNAKRT. Regardless of her resignation in 2013, a new contractual relationship was created by her acceptance of the offer of a permanent appointment in 2017. To decide otherwise would void of any meaning the decision to grant her a permanent appointment. The Tribunal noted that apart from limiting the permanent appointment to service with UNAKRT, there was no other condition in the March 2017 offer made to the Applicant. The Applicant’s case was exceptional for the following reasons: first, she is the holder of a permanent appointment effective retroactively to 30 June 2009, which she accepted after her 2013 separation of service second, her permanent appointment is limited to UNAKRT third, she does no longer have a position at UNAKRT because she was separated from service in 2013 and fourth, UNAKRT is a downsizing entity. Therefore, unless the Applicant’s options to be retained in UNAKRT service are explored, the decision to grant her a permanent appointment cannot be implemented and would have no practical effect. Having found that there is a contractual relationship between the parties and considering the exceptional circumstances of the case as mentioned above, the Tribunal considered that to implement the decision to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment, her case should be assimilated to a situation of an abolishment of post. The Tribunal considered that in the present case, the Administration should make all reasonable and good faith efforts to consider the Applicant for available and suitable posts. However, the extent of that obligation is limited to UNAKRT as her permanent appointment is limited to that entity. The Tribunal found that the Administration is bound to consider the Applicant for suitable posts that are vacant or likely to become vacant in the future and to recruit her on a preferred basis in accordance with staff rule 9.6(e) and 13.1(d). In line with Timothy, the Applicant is required to apply for advertised job openings. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration should consider her application “on a preferred or non-competitive” basis for the position. The Tribunal considered that such an approach does not require the Applicant to pass a competitive recruitment process but rather to express her interest in a position by applying to it. In relation to the level of the positions for which the Applicant should be considered, the Tribunal found that the Applicant should be considered not only for suitable positions at her grade level but also for lower grade available positions in UNAKRT for which she may express her interest by way of application thereto. Is the Applicant entitled to termination indemnity? The Applicant was separated from service in June 2013 due to her own resignation. Her appointment was not terminated by the Secretary-General as per staff rule 9.6(a) and, as a consequence, she is not entitled to the payment of a termination indemnity within the meaning of staff regulation 9.3(c). Compensation in lieu of specific performance The Tribunal considered that an amount equivalent to three months’ net base salary at the Applicant’s grade level at the time of her separation from service is a reasonable compensation in lieu of specific performance.