±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that beyond reporting the possible prohibited conduct concerning non-compliance with the United Nations financial rules and regulations to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the staff member had no further interest in law in the conduct of the investigation or its outcome. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there was no basis for his assertion that OIOS had declined to conduct an investigation into his report. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding the application concerning this decision not receivable.

Regarding the staff member¡¯s complaint of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the health insurance premiums imposed by the UPU in 2023 differed according to factors such as age, retirement status and country of residence.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no support for the appellants' contention regarding the principle of solidarity used in the Swiss social security law, as for several years such principle had no longer been applied by the UPU.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the rate of the UPU¡¯s contribution did not differ between the various age groups and there was no evidence that the premium increases were inconsistent with the costs the insurance provider...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the evidence before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the decision was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had not implicitly withdrawn delegated authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) when the Chef de Cabinet sought advice from the USG/DMSPC.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the USG/DMSPC reasonably rejected the report of the March 2020 Alternate Chair. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that the Administration was empowered impliedly to decline to act on a report that it considered as having exceeded its authorized parameters. Moreover, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the USG/DMSPC had the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Appeals Tribunal analyzed the text of Appendix D, from the 1966 version, and concluded that: (a) widows are eligible to receive compensation at a rate of two-fifths of a deceased staff member¡¯s annual salary; (b) if the deceased staff member is survived by more than one widow, the compensation shall be split evenly between the widows; (c) all pension benefits paid through the staff member¡¯s ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF entitlement shall be deducted from the compensation paid under Appendix D; and the deduction shall not reduce the amount of Appendix D compensation otherwise payable to less than 10 per cent of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the transitional measure ¨C granting 10 weeks of special leave with full pay (SLWFP) only to mothers who were still on maternity leave on 1 January 2023 ¨C was not unlawfully discriminatory.

It found that, while it might be argued that preferring birth mothers over fathers in the transitional arrangements between the old and new parental leave regimes was discriminatory, it was not unlawfully discriminatory for two reasons: i) the desirability of breastfeeding in circumstances that are inconsistent with their mothers also working full...