����AV

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The UNDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General.  Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

Whether the Applicant is entitled to maternity leave under staff rule 6.3(a)

While the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations is not a treaty, art. 31.1 of the VCLT sets forth generally accepted rules for interpreting an international document, which refers to interpretation according to the “ordinary meaning” of the terms “in their context and in the light of its object and purpose” (see, e.g., UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 942, Merani (1999), para. VII; Avognon et al. UNDT/2020/151, para. 50; Andreeva et al. UNDT/2020/122, para. 64; Applicant UNDT/2021/165, para. 37).

Whether the contested decision is lawful

Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

The Organization’s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all UN personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

The nature of the Applicant’s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that “[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied” (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant’s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

The Applicant’s view of the broadcast as an implied decision refusing to re-assign him was not receivable because the refusals commenced as far back as 2014. Neither this application nor the request for management evaluation preceding it were made within the time limit for receivable challenges to these decisions. There was no administrative decision concerning negligent handling of the Applicant’s medical concerns as alleged in the application. The broadcast was not a reviewable decision because the Applicant suffered no adverse results. At all times the Applicant was on paid sick leave...