����AV

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants’ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General’s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants’ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly’s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization’s duty to provide access...

While the eventual payment of arrears put an end to the ongoing breach by the Administration, it did not erase the failure to pay the salary when due, and in due amounts, nor the damage that would have been occasioned by the lack of timely payment during the period of two years. The Tribunal found that the duration of the breach and its continuing character was, by UNDT experience, extreme. This was combined with the obscurity of its cause, i.e., “technical problem with funding” which remained unexplained. Reasonably, a problem with funding for the position should have prevented the deployment...

The Tribunal held that the managers concerned acted in accordance with the obligations placed on them by sections 9 and 10 of ST/AI/400. Given the fact that the Applicant absented himself from work in Sector East without proper authorization and failed to heed the advice and requests sent to him, the Organization did not act unlawfully in taking steps to place him on SLWOP. Moreover, it was lawful for the Organization to take steps to recover payments made in advance in respect of education grant and travel in circumstances where such advances were not utilised for the purpose for which they...

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent’s obligation to notify...

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-UNAT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-UNAT-842, the claim is dismissed.

In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in the aforementioned judgments on the Salary Scale Cases, the claims are dismissed.

The Tribunal held that only the decision of 10 August 2016 was controlling because it informed the Applicant in no uncertain terms that his P-4 appointment was going to be voided. He requested management evaluation on 7 October 2016, which was well within the 60-day delay set out in staff rules 11.2(a) and 11.2(c). This claim was therefore receivable. Revoking the Applicant’s appointment ab initio was disproportionate and thus illegal. Recovery of the Applicant’s paid emoluments was accordingly without basis. The refusal to pay the Applicant’s benefits attaching to service in Mogadishu at the...

Receivability The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants requested management evaluation timeously. 2) Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slips of February 2018. 3) The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay component. 4) The Tribunal rejected the claim that discretion is a criterion for receivability. Merits The ICSC’s...