51³Ô¹Ï

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...

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 August 2017. 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...

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 August 2017. 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...

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 August 2017. 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...

Receivability The Application was found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicant requested management evaluation timeously. 2) An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicant, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by her salary slip of August 2017. 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 decisory...

Receivability The Application was found receivable for the following reasons: 1) Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicant requested management evaluation timeously. 2) An individual administrative decision, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to the Applicant, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by her salary slip of August 2017. 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 decisory...

The Applicant’s claim of breach of duty of care is not receivable since he did not submit a separate claim for breach of duty of care to the Secretary-General for consideration and decision. While the review of the breach of duty of care claim is requested in the Applicant’s request for management evaluation, this does not cure the procedural defect which is the Applicant’s failure to request the Secretary-General’s consideration and decision. The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim under Appendix D Regarding the claim that the Secretary of ABCC did not have the valid delegated authority...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant’s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had shown and the Applicant had not disputed through clear and convincing evidence that all relevant regulations, rules, administrative issuances and policies were complied with in considering the Applicant’s medical entitlements. There was no administrative decision carrying direct legal consequences on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of appointment to adjudicate on, since subsequent to filing the application on 24 September 2018, the Applicant’s claim were fully satisfied in November 2019. The Respondent having rescinded its decision...

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with ST/AI/2018/1, eligibility of international staff members for education grant in respect of their children is to be determined by inter alia the conditions that: a) the child is in full-time attendance at an educational institution at the primary level or above, and b) the child is five years of age or older at the beginning of the academic year, or the child reaches the age of five within three months of the beginning of the school year. The Tribunal found that UNICEF correctly considered that at both periods for which the Applicant applied for...