Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying service.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s interpretation of qualifying service would be inconsistent with its very definition as ¡°presence¡± of a staff member at the duty station. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore he had not completed the requisite 28 days of qualifying service neither when he departed the duty station, nor when he attempted to start his R&R on 23 June 2024. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that he had not requested or obtained permission for an earlier departure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had engaged in speculation about the authenticity of the staff member¡¯s arguments and intent, suggesting deliberately manipulative, or even fraudulent behavior on his part. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there had been no valid reason for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to embark on an inquiry beyond the scope of these proceedings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence in that respect, and that the corresponding parts had to be redacted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part and modified the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment: the parts specified by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were to be redacted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal in all other respects.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested a decision todeny his request for Rest and Recuperation (R&R) travel entitlement and to convert the days taken as R&R to annual leave.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2025/056, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application on the merits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that at the time the staff member left his duty station he had not accrued the required 28 days of uninterrupted qualifying physical presence at the duty station in order to be entitled to R&R leave.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
When the language used in the respective disposition is plain, common and causes no comprehension problems, the text of the rule must be interpreted upon its own reading, without further investigation.
The definition of qualifying service for Rest and Recuperation relies on the physical presence of the staff member at the duty station approved for R&R, without marking any difference between working and non-working days.
A short absence from the duty station cannot but suspend the accrual of qualifying service until the staff member¡¯s return to the duty station.
The role of the Dispute Tribunal is to decide on the applications brought to it strictly in accordance with its Statute and Rules of Procedure. When stating the reasons of fact and law, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is expected to limit itself to the questions that arose during the judicial proceedings. By the same token, it is also imperative that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT refrain from expressing unnecessary critical remarks about any of the parties to the dispute or other persons.