UNDT/2023/011

UNDT/2023/011, Applicant

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant’s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect information supplied by the administration in the Applicant’s decision to remain in the United States on FWA. Rather, the Applicant accepted the risk of staying on FWA for the duration of the whole school year, without having basis to assume that only the boarding expenses would be recovered. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to recover the entire education grant advance for three of his dependent children for the 2020-2021 academic year. The Applicant’s case was that, when he was on flexible working arrangement (“FWA”), telecommuting from his home country (United States of America), he had received information from the Organization that only the boarding allowance would be prorated. Accordingly, he argued that the Administration had no right to recover the education grant advance since he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization.

Legal Principle(s)

Staff rule 3.9.b.(i) provides that to be eligible to education grants, staff members must reside and serve at a duty station outside their home country:

b. Subject to conditions established by the Secretary-General, a staff member who holds a fixed term or a continuing appointment shall be entitled to an education grant in respect of each child, provided that:

(i) The staff member is regarded as an international recruit under staff rule 4.5 and resides and serves at a duty station which is outside his or her home country.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Applicant

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :