UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT noted that the health insurance premiums imposed by the UPU in 2023 differed according to factors such as age, retirement status and country of residence.
The UNAT held that there was no support for the appellants' contention regarding the principle of solidarity used in the Swiss social security law, as for several years such principle had no longer been applied by the UPU.
The UNAT determined that the rate of the UPU’s contribution did not differ between the various age groups and there was no evidence that the premium increases were inconsistent with the costs the insurance provider was expected to incur for each age group.
The UNAT was of the view that there existed a rational connection between the differentiation among premiums based on age, as opposed to status as active staff member or retiree, and the lawful and legitimate purpose this differentiation was designed to achieve, which was to ensure an economically viable health insurance scheme for current and future participants.
The UNAT held that, similarly, the distinction drawn between those living in Switzerland and abroad, implemented at the request of the association representing the retirees, had been rationally connected to the same lawful and legitimate purpose.
The UNAT found that the appellants did not hold an acquired right to premium amounts or specific distribution categories.
The UNAT found that there was no basis on which to find that the UPU had failed to comply with its duty of care.
The UNAT agreed with the Appeals Committee that the alleged shortcomings in consulting with retirees’ representatives in the Working Group had not invalidated the process nor the contested decision.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Committee decision.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Retirees of the Universal Postal Union contested the UPU Administration's decision regarding their health insurance premiums.
By decision dated 19 December 2023, the UPU Appeals Committee dismissed their application.
The retirees appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
When judging the financial decisions of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, or any other employee benefit fund for that matter, it is not for the Appeals Tribunal to determine the financial wisdom of a decision taken, or substitute its personal assessment of the economic advantages of one decision over another.
UNAT Judges are not to set the levels of benefits in the pension fund on the basis of their financial acumen or their own perceptions of equity, which are matters of policy for the fund, best left to its specialists with appropriate expertise. As a result, it is the lowest tier of judicial review that applies in such instances.
When a pension fund makes changes in the pension adjustment system it has an obligation to respect certain fundamental principles and must not take decisions which are arbitrary, but must ensure that it acts reasonably and adheres to the fundamental aim of the system.
In order to decide if discrimination exists or not, it must be determined first whether or not there has been a difference in treatment or differentiation between persons or categories of people. If differentiation is shown to exist, then there must be a rational connection between the differentiation in question and the lawful or legitimate purpose it is designed to achieve. If a rational connection exists and the differentiation is found to be justified and fair, then no discrimination has occurred.
There is no bar on the UPU as an international organization to have in place health insurance arrangements for current and former staff members based on differential premiums.