Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. UNDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. UNDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. UNDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. UNDT dismissed all claims.

For the purpose of determining eligibility for a SPA, the Applicant performed higher level functions from the date of the issuance of a vacancy announcement for the higher-level post until the selected candidate assumed the higher-level post. As he performed the higher-level functions for less than four months, the Applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under ST/AI/2003/3. The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for SPA and that the Administration’s decision not to pay it was lawful.

The application is rejected. Ãå±±½ûµØWomen, in denying the Applicant’s request for an ex gratia payment in lieu of Special Post Allowance, did not exceed its authority. Ãå±±½ûµØWomen did not fail to properly apply staff rule 12.3(b) as the requested ex gratia payment was a matter that could not be treated as an exception to the Staff Rules by applying staff rule 12.3(b). Additionally, under Ãå±±½ûµØWomen’s Financial Regulations and Rules, the request made by the Applicant does not fall within the parameters for an ex gratia payment. There is no basis within the regulatory framework for further reward by way...

Non-selection The job responsibilities of the post the Applicant applied for and the post occupied by her spouse, who both report to the same supervisor, are closely related. The Organization reasonably determined that the appointment of the Applicant to the post would create an actual or possible conflict of interest due to her marriage to her spouse. The decision was also procedurally compliant since, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the decision did not require a prior review by the Compliance Review Body and the hiring manager. The decision was not irrational or arbitrary just because...