Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General. Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

Whether the Applicant is entitled to maternity leave under staff rule 6.3(a)

While the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations is not a treaty, art. 31.1 of the VCLT sets forth generally accepted rules for interpreting an international document, which refers to interpretation according to the ¡°ordinary meaning¡± of the terms ¡°in their context and in the light of its object and purpose¡± (see, e.g., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 942, Merani (1999), para. VII; Avognon et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/151, para. 50; Andreeva et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/122, para. 64; Applicant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/165, para. 37).

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

Whether the contested decision is lawful

Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

The Organization¡¯s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

The nature of the Applicant¡¯s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

Chapter 6.3.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Staff Administraion and Management Manual (SAMM) provides that ¡°staff members on active duty who hold an indefinite or a fixed-term appointment will be entitled to maternity leave with full pay for a total period of 16 weeks comprising a pre-natal and a post-natal period. When the expiry date of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment, which is not considered for renewal, falls before the beginning of the six-week period prior to the delivery date, there will be no entitlement to maternity leave¡±.The Applicant¡¯s contract expired on 31 December 2006. At that time, she...