Judgment No. 3441
1. The impugned decision contained in the letter of the Director-General to the complainant dated 26 March 2012 is set aside to the extent that it dismissed the complainantís appeal against the short-term extension of her contract for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 March 2011.
2. Arising from paragraph 1 of this decision, UNIDO shall pay the complainant 10,000 euros compensation for moral injury for the breach of its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust towards the complainant.
3. The complainantís second complaint against the decision of the Director-General, dated 18 May 2012 is dismissed in its entirety.
4. UNIDO shall pay the complainant 2,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal found that UNIDO breached its duty of care, good faith and mutual trust to the complainant.
joinder; recovery of overpayment; extension; fixed-term
The Tribunalís case law provides, in effect, that a complainant cannot ask the Tribunal to consider issues which were not a part of the case in the internal appeal proceedings. This is because if those issues were not before the internal appellate body for consideration they would be irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal remedies as Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Tribunalís Statute requires. (See, for example, Judgment 2808, under 9.)
ILOAT reference: Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2808
new claim; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; failure to exhaust internal remedies
[A]ll of these and other issues which call into question decisions that are made on the basis of the UNJSPF Regulations are irreceivable in the Tribunal as they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under UNIDO Staff Regulation 12.2(b).
receivability of the complaint; competence of tribunal; unjspf; ratione materiae
[T]he decision to recover payments to which there was no entitlement is an administrative decision that the Administration could have made once it was satisfied that the complainant had not provided evidence to support the entitlement to the payments.
recovery of overpayment