51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General on the matter of the interest. UNAT held that UNDT has the power to award interest but erred in ordering the payment of interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. UNAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the award of interest from the UNDT judgment, and awarded interest at the US Prime Rate applicable at the date that the entitlements became due. UNAT held that if the judgment was not executed within 60 days, five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate from the date of expiry of the 60-day period to the date of payment of the...

UNAT observed that the Appellant did not challenge the reasoning of UNDT, but appealed on the ground that the administrative policy in place should be changed because she was promoted but her gross income was reduced. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s pay calculations also took into account other deductions and increases such that her net income increased. UNAT held that the real issue before it was whether UNDT made a reversible error in fact or law such that it must allow the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant did not disagree that, on its face, the calculations of her salary were made...

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that UNDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. UNAT held that both UNDT and UNAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. UNAT affirmed the UNDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that UNDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

UNAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.

UNAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. UNAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari¡¯s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

UNAT considered an appeal by Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that UNDT erred by failing to recognize that the second contract by which Mr. Castelli¡¯s appointment was extended beyond a year was invalid because it had not been submitted for review by a central review body. UNAT held that, unless it is fake or fraudulent, a staff member¡¯s appointment contract gives rise to entitlements upon the signing and acceptance by the staff member of their letter of appointment. UNAT held that this is true even where the administration improperly handled the recruitment process. UNAT held...

UNAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. UNAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. UNAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since UNAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. UNAT held that UNDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. UNAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

UNAT 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. UNAT 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 UNDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and remanded it to UNDT for further proceedings.

On the issue of receivability, UNAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. UNAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. UNAT 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. UNAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...