Ãå±±½ûµØ

Regulation 2.1

  • 13.1(b)(i)
  • Annex I
  • Annex II
  • Annex III
  • Annex IV
  • Appendix D
  • Provisional Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 1
  • Regulation 1.1
  • Regulation 1.1(a)
  • Regulation 1.1(b)
  • Regulation 1.1(d)
  • Regulation 1.1(e)
  • Regulation 1.1(f)
  • Regulation 1.2
  • Regulation 1.2(a)
  • Regulation 1.2(b)
  • Regulation 1.2(c)
  • Regulation 1.2(e)
  • Regulation 1.2(f)
  • Regulation 1.2(g)
  • Regulation 1.2(h)
  • Regulation 1.2(i)
  • Regulation 1.2(l)
  • Regulation 1.2(m)
  • Regulation 1.2(o)
  • Regulation 1.2(p)
  • Regulation 1.2(q)
  • Regulation 1.2(r)
  • Regulation 1.2(t)
  • Regulation 1.3
  • Regulation 1.3(a)
  • Regulation 10.1
  • Regulation 10.1(a)
  • Regulation 10.1(b)
  • Regulation 10.1a)
  • Regulation 10.2
  • Regulation 11.1
  • Regulation 11.1(a)
  • Regulation 11.2
  • Regulation 11.2(a)
  • Regulation 11.2(b)
  • Regulation 11.4
  • Regulation 12.1
  • Regulation 2.1
  • Regulation 3
  • Regulation 3.1
  • Regulation 3.2
  • Regulation 3.2(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(a)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)
  • Regulation 3.3(f)(i)
  • Regulation 3.5
  • Regulation 4.1
  • Regulation 4.13
  • Regulation 4.13(c)
  • Regulation 4.14(b)
  • Regulation 4.2
  • Regulation 4.3
  • Regulation 4.4
  • Regulation 4.5
  • Regulation 4.5(b)
  • Regulation 4.5(c)
  • Regulation 4.5(d)
  • Regulation 4.7(c)
  • Regulation 5.2
  • Regulation 5.3
  • Regulation 6.1
  • Regulation 6.2
  • Regulation 8
  • Regulation 8.1
  • Regulation 8.2
  • Regulation 9.1
  • Regulation 9.1(a)
  • Regulation 9.1(b)
  • Regulation 9.2
  • Regulation 9.3
  • Regulation 9.3(a)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(i)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(ii)
  • Regulation 9.3(a)(v)
  • Regulation 9.3(b)
  • Regulation 9.3(c)
  • Regulation 9.4
  • Regulation 9.5
  • Regulation 9.6
  • Regulation 9.6(b)
  • Regulation 9.6(c)
  • Regulation 9.6(e)
  • Regulation 9.7
  • Regulation IV
  • Regulation X
  • Showing 1 - 7 of 7

    The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

    The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member.  Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment.  The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis.  It is a...

    UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, UNAT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. UNAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the UNDT...

    UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. UNAT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. UNAT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

    The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that UNDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. UNAT disagreed and found that the reason UNDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. UNAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...

    Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant’s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months’ net base salary.

    Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant’s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant’s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

    UNDT held that a plain reading of staff regulation 2.1 makes it clear that the Administration is obliged to provide a classification not only for the staff members but also for the posts that they are encumbering. UNDT held that nowhere in Personnel Directive/1/94 it is as much as contemplated that a staff member at the GS-level, even on a short-term temporary appointment as the Applicant, could be hired against an unclassified post. UNDT held that the administrative decision under review is clearly the decision by which the Applicant was recruited against an unclassified post when he was...