AV

UNDT/2017/028

UNDT/2017/028, Fitsum

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA “within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment”. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant submitted the claim outside the statutory timeline and is clearly out of time. Section 7.3 requires that for SPA to be extended by the department or office without reference to the SPA panel, the supervisor must certify that the staff member continued to satisfactorily perform the full functions of the higher-level post. The evidence tendered to the Tribunal by the Applicant’s supervisors does not support the Applicant’s contentions that she was asked to perform higher level functions. The Applicant has not tendered any documentation nor is there any paper trail to justify such a claim and payment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

At the time of the application, the Applicant served as a Human Resources Officer at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) at the NOC-5 level. On 28 October 2014, she filed an application contesting a decision dated 16 April 2014 not to pay her a Special Post Allowance (SPA) for the period 1 December 2009 to 10 May 2011.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable
Outcome Extra Text

The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 3.17(ii) by failing to make a claim seeking retroactive payment of SPA in a timely manner. The application was refused as not receivable.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Fitsum
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type