�山����

Role of the MEU - The MEU’s role is restricted to conducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations and not to act as Co-Counsel for the Respondent. Respondent’s disclosure of legally privileged email communications between the Applicant’s Counsel and MEU - Such activity compromises the perception of MEU as an independent, impartial and objective Unit and “would leadto the complete absence of any form of communication or possible mediation through the MEU, as legitimate concerns would be raised regarding whether such discussions would be disclosed to the Respondent’s Counsel”. Exception to rules and the principle of equal pay for equal work - In the present case, it is evident that the ASG/OHRM was incorrect in assuming that the Applicant had received equal pay for work of equal value because she failed to take into account the fact that for the period of time in which the Applicant had worked as a P-5 officer on a D-1 post, his pension contributions were omitted. The Tribunal concurs with the Applicant’s submissions that the principle of the inclusion of pensions into the concept of equal pay for work of equal value is applicable in the present case.