±¬ÁÏÍø

Since it was ECOWAS and not ±¬ÁÏÍøSD that took the decision not to attribute the applicant for her contributions to the ECOWAS Poverty Profile, this decision is therefore not a decision in respect of which the respondent, ie, the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Office of the United Nations, has any responsibility. Even if the ultimate decision to exclude the applicant from attribution was that of ECOWAS, it could, nevertheless, be held that the administrative decision in question was that ±¬ÁÏÍøSD decided to accept the decision of ECOWAS in respect of the applicant, contrary to its...

Compensation: The elements of Applicant¡¯s compensation were: applicable salary, plus post adjustment, less staff assessment, less pension contribution made by Applicant, less amounts paid to Applicant on separation, less mitigation damages earned by Applicant, plus accrued vacation, plus personal distress award of USD4,000, plus e-PAS violation of USD6,000. Pension: Since, based on the facts from Beaudry ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/039, it was unlikely that the Applicant would have had her contract renewed until her retirement, the Applicant would not have qualified for any retirement benefits, including...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in view of the informal resolution of the dispute.

Since the Applicant received an extension of time and failed to submit an application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the matter for want of prosecution.

In view of the informal resolution of the dispute and the withdrawal of the application, there is no longer any matter for adjudication before the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant¡¯s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months¡¯ net base salary.