United Nations and United Nations Development Programme v. Pereira Ormond

The case concerned a consultant hired under a fixed-term service contract to work on a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) technical cooperation project in the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso between 1996 and 1999. After the project ended, he filed a labour claim seeking recognition of an employment relationship and corresponding labour entitlements. The first-instance Labour Court rejected the immunity of jurisdiction invoked by the United Nations and UNDP, recognized the existence of an employment bond, and awarded labour benefits, while noting that any enforcement would depend on an express waiver of immunity. The Regional Labour Court affirmed the rejection of immunity, treating the dispute as arising from an “act of management”.

The United Nations and UNDP subsequently filed a rescissory action arguing that the labour judgments violated their treaty-based immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the 1966 Basic Agreement on Technical Assistance, and the UN Charter. Both the Regional Labour Court and, on appeal, the Superior Labour Court rejected the action, holding that immunity could not override the worker’s access to judicial protection.

Before the Supreme Federal Court, the United Nations, UNDP and the Brazilian government, held subsidiarily liable in the labour proceedings, argued that the lower courts had disregarded treaty-based jurisdictional immunity and that the labour judiciary could not exercise competence where jurisdiction had been excluded by binding international commitments. They maintained that the 1946 Convention afforded absolute immunity from suit and execution, except in cases of express waiver, and that contracts issued under UNDP technical cooperation projects were governed by UN rules and subject to arbitration in accordance with Section 29 of the Convention.

The Supreme Federal Court held that the doctrine of relative immunity applicable to foreign States does not extend to international organizations, whose immunity derives from specific treaties incorporated into Brazilian law. It found that the UN Charter, the 1966 Technical Assistance Basic Agreement, and the 1946 Convention remained fully in force and required respect for the Organization’s immunity from jurisdiction and execution. The Court noted that UNDP’s contractual framework included internal mechanisms for dispute settlement and an arbitral clause, consistent with the organization’s obligations under the Convention. The Court concluded that the lower courts had disregarded the Convention by failing to give effect to its express provisions on immunity. It therefore set aside the labour court judgments and recognised in full the jurisdictional and enforcement immunities of the United Nations and UNDP.