UNDT/2024/096, Stepanova
The Tribunal established that the Applicant was duly informed, before accepting the offer letter, of the mandatory nature of the condition of mobility in her proposed employment. However, even if mandatory mobility had not been so explicit in the pre-appointment documents, the regulatory framework stipulates at staff rule 4.1 that it is the letter of appointment (LOA) that contains expressly or by reference the terms and conditions of employment.
Therefore, when the Applicant signed her LOA on 3 October 2023, duly accepting all the terms and conditions of her employment, including the required mandatory movement, she was bound by the Mobility Administrative Instruction (Mobility AI) that set the conditions for that mandatory movement.
The Tribunal thus concluded that, in all circumstances, the Applicant had failed to establish that there was any unlawful factor in the inclusion of the Mobility AI in her terms and conditions of employment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to deny the application in its entirety.
The Applicant contested a decision to subject her to the mobility policy on grounds that she had a contractual right to its non-application.
Pursuant to the settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal, the legal act by which the Organization undertakes to employ a person as a staff member, is not the offer letter, but a letter of appointment signed by the Secretary-General or an official acting on his behalf. It is the letter of appointment and not the offer letter accepted by a staff member that officially sets the terms and conditions of employment.