����AV

The UNAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week.  It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member’s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded.  The UNAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The UNAT also found no merit in the staff member’s argument that the lack of...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The UNAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The UNAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

AAF appealed.

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The UNAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member’s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the UNDT.  As the Secretary-General had...

The Tribunal found that it was not unreasonable nor unlawful to require the Applicant to work from the office for two days per week. The Administration, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in declining the Applicant’s request to work from home for the entire work week. The Tribunal took note that the Applicant had been able to work remotely on a full-time basis from March 2020 to December 2022 and that there was an operational need for the Applicant to return to work. The Director reasonably, weighed this operational fact against allowing the Applicant to telecommute for the entire...

While, arguably, changing the title of a position may carry the same effect as abolishing it, the two actions are not synonymous under the UNHCR legal framework.  Since “discontinuance/abolition of post” and “change of position title” are separately provided for under the UNHCR New Resource Allocation Framework (UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1), it follows that they are independent of each other. Indeed, the above provision has explanatory language indicating that “discontinuance of a post” is “same as abolition of a post defined in the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations”. No such...

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...