±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and remanded it to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for further proceedings.

On the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF correctly applied the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/108 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/109 jointly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the ±¬ÁÏÍø outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in applying Former ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that ¡°the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID without consulting the releasing agency¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had...