�鶹��ý

The UNAT held that the ISA JAB was correct in determining that Ms. Nguyen was: (1) not entitled to a repatriation grant from ISA; (2) not entitled to payment for unused accrued annual leave, which was transferred to her subsequent employer, UNRWA; (3) not entitled to reimbursement for certain school supply expenses; and (4) not entitled to the non-removal allowance, which was a discontinued benefit. However, the UNAT also held that the ISA JAB erred in denying Ms. Nguyen a relocation grant, and erred in denying her the travel expenses and travel time from Kingston, Jamaica to New York. The...

The Appeals Tribunal’s first finding is that the UNDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the UNDT’s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the UNDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to UNDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a UNDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant’s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant’s husband served three years after the Applicant’s separation. For these three years of non...

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a “staff member”. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

The purpose of compensation: Since the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the Tribunal first determines the likelihood that the Applicant would have been offered a hypothetical new contract and thereafter the characteristics of it. Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

Assignment grant: Rule 107.20 clearly envisages a situation in which a newly recruited staff member from an area “within commuting distance of the duty station” would be entitled to an assignment grant where he had been “settled” in the duty station perhaps by a former employer who due to the new recruitment would no longer take responsibility for such things as his accommodation. He would be given the assignment grant to “resettle” himself, as it were. By the same token, a newly recruited staff member who had previously worked for the Organisation for a period of time as a consultant and most...

Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had UNICEF properly complied with its own rules. Length of a new contract: Had UNICEF fulfilled its obligations, the Applicant would have been offered a new contract as a two-year fixed-term appointment. Possible renewal: It could not be assumed that, had the Applicant been offered a new contract, then this contract would automatically have been renewed indefinitely—the...

Tribunal’s review of eligibility for benefits: The Secretary-General has no discretion to grant or deny a benefit provided for in the Staff Regulations and Rules and is bound, in this respect, by the applicable rules. Accordingly, when the matter before the Tribunal concerns the refusal to grant a benefit, the Tribunal may only examine whether the staff member was eligible for, or entitled to, such benefit, without taking into account the grounds for refusal provided by the Administration. The fact that other staff members in the same situation may have been granted the disputed benefit is...