Ăĺ±±˝űµŘ

ICSC Statute

  • AC/UNITAR/2019/05
  • Administrative Rules of UNJSPF
  • DIOS Guide to conducting misconduct investigations
  • ICAO Field Service Staff Rules Part VIII
  • ICAO FSSR Annex VIII
  • ICAO Service Code
  • ICJ Former Staff Regulations, Regulation 11.5
  • ICJ Former Staff Regulations, Regulation 11.7
  • ICJ Statute
  • ICSC RoP
  • ICSC Statute
  • ICTR Code of Professional Conduct for Defence Counsel
  • ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence
  • ICTR Statute
  • ICTY Statute
  • ILO Equal Remuneration Convention
  • ILOAT Statute
  • IMO/FMO/65/2003/Section 5.2.8
  • Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances (CEB/2003/HLCM/CM/7)
  • ISA ISBA/ST/AI/2017/3 (Performance Management and Appraisal System)
  • ITC/AI/2015/07
  • ITLOS Administrative Instructions
  • Jordan Field Staff Circular J/17/97
  • La politique de rapatriement du PNUD
  • OAI Guidelines
  • STL Statute
  • The UNDP Repatriation Policy
  • The UNHCR Policy on Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP)
  • Ăĺ±±˝űµŘWOMEN Financial Regulation and Rules
  • UNDP Agreed Separations
  • UNDP Financial Regulations
  • UNDP Human Resources User Guide on Workplace Harassment and Abuse of Authority (May 2018)
  • UNDP ICT Policy
  • UNDP Legal Framework
  • UNDP OAI Charter
  • UNDP Policy on Family Relationships
  • UNDP Recruitment and Selection Framework
  • UNDP Rules and Procedures for the UNDP Compliance Review
  • UNFPA Charter of Office of Audit and Investigation Services
  • UNFPA Disciplinary Framework
  • UNFPA Financial Regulation 14.8(b)
  • UNFPA Policies and Procedures Manual Secretary
  • UNFPA Procurement Procedure A.4
  • UNFPA Procurement Procedure C.1
  • UNFPA Procurement Procedure C.4.2
  • UNFPA’s Policies and Procedures Manual
  • UNHCR Code of Conduct
  • UNHCR IOM No. 044/2013-FOM 044/2013
  • UNHCR IOM/09/FOM/10/2012
  • UNHCR Procedure on Assignments (UNHCR/HCP/2015/2/Rev.1)
  • UNHCR/AI/2018/18 (Administrative Instruction on Misconduct and the Disciplinary Process)
  • UNHCR/AI/2018/2
  • UNHCR/AI/2019/13 (Administrative Instruction on End User Computing)
  • UNHCR/AI/2020/1/Rev.2 (Administrative Instruction on Recruitment and Assignment of Locally Recruited Staff (“RALS”))
  • UNHCR/AI/2020/1/Rev.2 (Instruction administrative sur le recrutement et l'affectation du personnel recrutĂ© localement (« RALS »))
  • UNHCR/AI/2022/09
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/12 (UNHCR Policy on Performance Management)
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/12/Rev. 1, Revised Policy on Performance Management
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/2 (Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of International Professional Staff Members)
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/3 (Policy on Resolving Situations of Staff Members in Between Assignments)
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/4
  • UNHCR/HCP/2014/4 Policy on Discrimination
  • UNHCR/HCP/2015/9, Policy on the Administration of Fixed-Term Appointments
  • UNHCR/HCP/2017/2 (Recruitment and Assigments Policy “RAP”)
  • UNHCR/HCP/2022/07 (Recruitment and Assignments Policy)
  • UNICEF DHR/PROCEDURE/2017/001 (UNICEF Procedure on dependency allowances)
  • UNICEF DHR/PROCEDURE/2017/005
  • UNICEFDHR/Procedure/2017/006
  • UNICRI Statute
  • UNJSPF Rules and Pension Adjustment System of the Fund (JSPB/G.4/Rev.19 of 1 January 2014)
  • UNOPS Executive Office Directive Ref. EOD.ED.2019.02
  • UNOPS Operational Directive OD.PCG.2017.01
  • UNOPS Organizational Directive No. 10 (Policy to address fraud)
  • UNRWA Agency Policy in respect of Staff who are arrested
  • UNRWA DIOS Guide to Conducting Investigations, 2021
  • UNRWA DIOS Technical Instruction on Investigation Policy 01/2021
  • UNRWA General Staff Circular GSC 5/2007
  • UNRWA General Staff Circular No.01/2013
  • UNRWA GSC No.06/2010
  • UNRWA ISC No.1/4/97
  • UNRWA Organization Directive No. 20
  • UNRWA Organization Directive No.1 of 15 July 1987
  • UNU Charter
  • World Health Organization’s Policy and Procedures Concerning Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Abuse of Authority
  • Showing 1 - 10 of 26

    UNDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

    The 11 percent increase in the US Embassy salaries from June 2008 were properly factored into the calculations, but the 2010 increase fell outside the data range for the collection and consideration of data for the 2010 review. There was no evidence of ill motivation or breaches of the relevant rules and guidelines by the Administration.; The Administration did not breach any of the provisions of the Manual when it reached the decision concerning family expenditure surveys. The Office of Human Resources Management used the correct criteria for deciding if a spousal allowance should be created...

    Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...

    The UNDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

    The UNDT found that: there were no legal consequences arising from the contested decision which adversely affected the Applicant; the Applicant has not suffered any downgrading in her salary and emoluments or in her functions; and that at best, her concerns are speculative. Receivability - The Applicant contends that the implementation of the renumbering of her post will have adverse effects on her rights including her career advancement but she did not place any evidence before the Tribunal to show that the contested decision was taken solely with respect to her or that there are legal...

    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 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 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 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 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...