2015-罌厭弝ⅰAT-568

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

On the Appellants＊ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent＊s Answer, 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants＊ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that: insofar as the Appellants＊ sought to impugn the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that the absence of more Appellant witnesses before 罌厭弝ⅰDT had a bearing on the ultimate finding on the issue of acquiescence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s rejection of the Appellant＊s claims regarding that decision was fully consistent with the jurisprudence of 罌厭弝ⅰAT, namely that applications to 罌厭弝ⅰDT are only receivable when a staff member has previously submitted a contested decision for administrative review or management evaluation within the specified deadlines. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no reason to impugn 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s rejection of the Appellants＊ arguments that there were ongoing discussions and the time for filing did not start to run until sometime in 2008. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err in law or in fact in deeming the Appellant＊s application only receivable with respect to the subsequent application of the policy on overtime in the relevant period immediately prior to the request for administrative review in January 2009. 罌厭弝ⅰAT concurred with the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s interpretation of Appendix B of the former Staff Rules. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Administration acquiesced to the practice that annual leave, sick leave and compensatory time off (CTO) were routinely counted as hours of work for the purpose of overtime pay within the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. 罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the argument advanced by the Respondent that the Administration sought to correct an illegality or put an end to double-dipping by staff. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no legal or factual error on the part of 罌厭弝ⅰDT when it found the Administration＊s interpretation and application of Appendix B to the former Staff Rules to be lawful. On the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s finding that overtime policies had been applied consistently throughout the Secretariat, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellants did not make out a persuasive argument that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law or in fact such that would warrant interference by 罌厭弝ⅰAT. On the alleged errors of fact regarding mandatory consultation, 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no error or flaw such as would serve to undermine 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s overall conclusion on the issue of consultation. To some extent, 罌厭弝ⅰAT accepted the Appellants＊ argument that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in fact in holding that the Appellants had acquiesced to the change from December 2004, however, 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that there was no evidence adduced before 罌厭弝ⅰDT that after October 2006 any further consultations or negotiations were entered into. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it could not reasonably be concluded that 罌厭弝ⅰDT should have found that there was an extant legitimate expectation on the part of the Appellants as of January 2009. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, while it was of the view that 罌厭弝ⅰDT should not have concluded that the Appellant＊s acquiesced to the changes from January 2005, it remained the case that they acquiesced to the Administration＊s continued inclusion post-October 2006 of CTO in the change effected on 1 January 2005, without demur, until the request for administrative review of 16 January 2009. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, in all the circumstances, it was not persuaded that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s judgment should be impugned for having failed to acknowledge that the Appellants had a legitimate expectation to the continuance of the pre-January 2005 practice within their Department. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err in law, or in fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, or in procedure in arriving at its decision on the Appellants＊ claims. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contested a change to the interpretation and application of the Organisation＊s rules on compensation for overtime work. 罌厭弝ⅰDT dismissed the application and declined to order costs.

Legal Principle(s)

罌厭弝ⅰDT enjoys considerable discretion in case management with which 罌厭弝ⅰAT is slow to interfere, absent any procedural error affecting the ultimate outcome of the case before 罌厭弝ⅰDT. 罌厭弝ⅰDT is prohibited from considering a claim that is filed three years or more after the notification of the contested decision. 罌厭弝ⅰDT has no jurisdiction to suspend or waive the deadlines for requests for management evaluation and administrative review.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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

Lebouef et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement