2011-Ģ��ƵAT-185

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. Ģ��ƵAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that Ģ��ƵDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. Ģ��ƵAT vacated the Ģ��ƵDT judgment and remanded it to Ģ��ƵDT for further proceedings.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested what they considered to be new practices on overtime and compensatory time off, namely that a staff member must have actually worked eight hours before becoming eligible for payment of overtime. Ģ��ƵDT found against the Applicants.

Legal Principle(s)

Left deliberately blank

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Leboeuf et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement