2013-UNAT-354, Lebouef et al.
UNAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185. UNAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by UNDT in its Case Management Order. UNAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of UNDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. UNAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. UNAT rejected the application for interpretation.
Previous UNAT judgment: The Applicants contested their Department’s interpretation and application of the Organisation’s rules on compensation for overtime work. In judgment No. UNDT/2010/206, UNDT dismissed the application. In judgment No. 2011-UNAT-185, UNAT vacated the UNDT judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Subsequently, UNDT issued Order No. 182 (NY/2012) (Case Management Order), in which it made certain orders for the further conduct of the case.
UNDT is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. UNAT will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of UNDT in the management of cases.