UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that none of the reasons provided by Mr. Hejab, considered individually or collectively, were convincing enough to consider his case exceptional, so as to warrant the award of higher compensation than set by Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute.
The UNAT held that it is not unusual for an older staff member, particularly one who is close to retirement, to have difficulty in finding another job. Likewise, although there are difficult economic conditions where he lives, this is also not the type of factor that warrants compensation in excess of the statutory norm.
The UNAT held that it did not find merit in Mr. Hejab’s contention that the impact of the “very serious allegations on his good name and reputation” was a special circumstance surrounding his termination which the UNRWA DT failed to consider.
The UNAT failed to find any egregious factors or that the Agency has shown bad faith or was reckless in the violation of Mr. Hejab’s rights.
Accordingly, the UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of compensation in lieu of two years’ net base salary.
With regard to Mr. Hejab’s request for all lost salaries, this could not be entertained as he had not presented the claim first to the UNRWA DT.
The UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
UNRWA DT staff member contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with termination indemnity.
The UNRWA DT in Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2024/029 granted Mr. Hejab’s application and rescinded the Agency’s disciplinary measure of separation from service and set the amount of compensation in lieu at two years’ net base salary, at the date of his termination.
The former staff member appealed the amount of compensation.
Legal Principle(s)
To be exceptional, a circumstance or reason need not be unique or unprecedented or very rare, but it cannot be one which is regular or routinely or normally encountered.
An exceptional circumstance requires the existence of egregious factors which may include reckless abuse of power, blatant harassment, discrimination, retaliatory threats and hostility, humiliation, lack of good faith, manifest unfairness or disproportionality, grave violations of due process, or manipulation. The common ground of exceptional factors is the existence of bad faith or reckless disregard that directly led to the aggravation of the staff member’s grief.
Exceptional compensation is not appropriate when the staff member is not blameless.
The Dispute Tribunal is in the best position to decide on the level or quantum of compensation given its appreciation of the case.
Courts are bound by the pleadings and reliefs sought by the parties in a suit, and court cannot grant reliefs not pleaded.