��DT/2010/088

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

In accordance with ST/AI/234/Rev.1, setting the normal number of working hours per week is a matter within the authority of the Executive Director of ��EP. Thus when he initially decided not to reduce the normal working hours in Paris, the Executive Director of ��EP acted within his discretionary authority. Since the applicants were legally required to work 40 hours per week from January 2006 to March 2007, their claim for 2.5 hours of overtime per week during that period is without merit. The applicants alleged discrimination, arbitrariness and bad faith on the part of the Administration in the consideration of their requests. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden of proof rests with the party making such allegations. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The applicants are 29 General Service staff members working for ��EP in Paris. In January 2006, ��ESCO, the �� lead agency in France, reduced the normal working week from 40 to 37.5 hours. At the time, ��EP rejected the applicants�� request to adjust their working hours to those adopted by ��ESCO. Eventually, in March 2007, the Executive Director of ��EP decided to reduce the normal workweek in Paris from 40 to 37.5 hours. The applicants then requested that ��EP pay them retroactively the overtime they considered to have worked between January 2006 and March 2007 by working 40 hours per week instead of 37.5. ��EP rejected their request. This is the contested decision. The JAB and the Secretary-General rejected the appeal. The applicants then brought the matter before the former ��AT.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Taconet

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement