Chapter V. Decisions of Administrative Tribunals of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations

SUMMARY

A. Decisions of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal 1. Judgement No. 1231 (22 July 2005): Applicant v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations 377 2. Judgement No. 1234 (22 July 2005): Applicant v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations 379 3. Judgement No. 1236 (22 July 2005): Applicant v. the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization 381 4. Judgement No. 1239 (22 July 2005): Applicant v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations 383 5. Judgement No. 1242 (22 July 2005): Applicant v. the Secretary-General of the United... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

1

A. Decisions of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal2

1. Judgement No. 1231 (22 July 2005): Applicant v the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Terms .and .conditions .of .employment—Decision .to .arm .security .officer .is .a .policy . decision . within . the . discretion . of . the . Secretary-General—Limited . review . of . discretionary .decisions—Burden .of .proof .in .discrimination .claims—Transfer .and . conversion .of .status .of .employment

The .Applicant .entered .the .service .of .the .Organization .as .a .Security .Officer .at .the . S-1 .level .on .19 .September .1983 .Her .contract .was .subsequently .extended .and, .on .1 .October .1985, .she .was .granted .a .permanent .appointment .At .the .time .of .the .events .which .gave .

1 . In .view .of .the .large .number .of .judgements .which .were .rendered .in .2005 .by .the .administrative . tribunals .of .the .United .Nations .and .related .intergovernmental .organizations, .only .those .judgements . which .address .significant .issues .of .United .Nations .administrative .law .or .are .otherwise .of .general .interest .have .been .summarized .in .the .present .edition .of .the .Yearbook. .For .the .full .text .of .the .complete .series . of .judgements .rendered .by .the .tribunals, .namely, .Judgements .Nos .1223 .to .1281 .of .the .United .Nations . Administrative .Tribunal, .Judgements .Nos .2375 .to .2479 .of .the .Administrative .Tribunal .of .the .International .Labour .Organization, .Decisions .Nos .330 .to .344 .of .the .World .Bank .Administrative .Tribunal, . and .Judgements .No .2005–1 .to .2005–4 .of .the .International .Monetary .Fund .Administrative .Tribunal, . see, .respectively, .documents .AT/DEC/1223 .to .AT/DEC/1281; .Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization: 98th and 99th Sessions; .World Bank Administrative Tribunal Reports, 2005; .and .International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal Reports, Judgments No. 2005–1 to 2005–4.

2 . The .Administrative .Tribunal .of .the .United .Nations .is .competent .to .hear .and .pass .judgement . upon .applications .alleging .non-observance .of .contracts .of .employment .of .staff .members .of .the .United . Nations .Secretariat .or .of .their .terms .of .appointment .In .addition, .the .Tribunal’s .competence .extends .to . the .United .Nations .Joint .Staff .Pension .Fund .(including .cases .from .all .specialized .agencies .that .participate .in .the .Fund .and .which .have .accepted .the .jurisdiction .of .the .Tribunal .in .Pension .Fund .cases), .the . United .Nations .Programmes .and .Funds, .such .specialized .agencies .and .related .organizations .that .have . accepted .the .competence .of .the .Tribunal .(the .International .Maritime .Organization .and .the .International .Civil .Aviation .Organization), .the .staff .of .the .Registries .of .the .International .Court .of .Justice, .the . International .Tribunal .for .the .Law .of .the .Sea, .and .the .staff .of .the .International .Seabed .Authority .For . more .information .about .the .United .Nations .Administrative .Tribunal .and .the .full .texts .of .its .judgements, . see .http://untreaty un org/UNAT/main_page htm

3 . .Spyridon .Flogaitis, .Vice-President, .presiding; .and .Jacqueline .R .Scott .and .Goh .Joon .Seng, . Members

77

78 . UNITED .NATIONS .JURIDICAL .YEARBOOK .2005

rise .to .her .Application, .she .held .the .S-3 .position .of .Security .Officer, .Security .and .Safety . Service .(SSS)

The . Applicant . had . expressed . religious . objections . to . carrying . a . firearm . in . 1989, . but .was .subsequently .able .to .overcome .them .and .carried .a .weapon .for .some .years .On . 15 .August .1997, .however, .she .informed .her .supervisor .that .she .could .no .longer .reconcile . carrying .firearms .with .her .religious .convictions .On .23 .November .1999, .the .Applicant, . who .had .completed .the .training .to .be .a .Fire .Officer, .submitted .a .request .for .assignment .to . the .Fire .Unit .It .would .appear .that .no .action .was .taken .on .this .request

On .9 .November .2000, .the .Office .of .Human .Resources .Management .prepared .a .“Note . for .the .File” .documenting .various .efforts .made .to .resolve .the .Applicant’s .case, .including .a . conciliation .session .and .an .offer .of .either .“exceptional .terms .of .agreed .termination” .or .a . transfer .outside .the .SSS, .subject .to .conversion .of .her .status .to .General .Service .and .a .review . of .her .status .after .one .year .Thereafter, .on .17 .January .2001, .the .Applicant .was .furnished . with .a .draft .Memorandum .of .Understanding .which .set .out .the .terms .for .her .transfer .to . the .General .Service .category .and .indicated .that .the .resulting .loss .in .income .would .be . borne .by .her

On .29 .August .2001, .the .Applicant .lodged .an .appeal .with .the .Joint .Appeals .Board . (JAB) .In .a .majority .report .dated .29 .August .2002, .the .JAB .recommended .that, .in .the .event . of .a .transfer .to .the .General .Service .category, .the .Applicant .should .be .paid .a .personal .transitional .allowance, .decreasing .progressively .from .US$ .540 .a .month .to .zero .over .a .period .of . three .years, .and .that .the .review .of .her .contractual .status .should .take .place .after .at .least .two . years .of .service .The .dissenting .member .of .the .JAB .recommended .that .she .be .transferred . or .reassigned .to .the .Fire .Unit .On .23 .September .2002, .the .Applicant .was .informed .that .the . Secretary-General .was .not .in .agreement .with .the .recommendations .of .either .the .majority . or .the .dissenting .member .of .the .JAB, .but .would .permit .her .“a .final .opportunity” .to .elect . one .of .the .options .offered .to .her .in .November .2000 .She .was .cautioned .that, .in .the .absence . of .a .decision .from .her .within .one .month, .the .Administration .would .“commence .the .procedures .for .terminating .[her] .appointment .for .failure .to .meet .the .performance .standards . required .of .a .Security .Officer” .On .30 .October, .the .Applicant .opted .for .a .transfer .to .the . General .Service .category, .“in .order .to .protect .[her] .employment .with .the .Organization” . On .30 .June .2003, .she .filed .her .Application .with .the .Tribunal

In .its .consideration .of .the .case, .the .Tribunal .recalled .its .jurisprudence .that .the .terms . and .conditions .of .employment .with .the .United .Nations .“are .not .necessarily .limited .to . those .set .out .in .writing” .but .“may .be .expressed .or .implied .and . . . .gathered .from .correspondence .and .surrounding .facts .and .circumstances” .It .found .that .the .terms .and .conditions .of .the .Applicant’s .employment, .including .the .requirement .that .she .be .willing .and . able .to .bear .firearms .when .required, .were .set .forth .both .in .writing .and .in .the .“surrounding . facts .and .circumstances”

With .respect .to .the .written .terms .of .the .Applicant’s .employment, .the .Tribunal .took . note .of .the .following .provisions .of .the .Handbook .of .the .SSS, .a .copy .of .which .was .provided . to .the .Applicant .upon .recruitment:

“Section 5.06—Firearms—Issue and Control Procedures

(a) . Authority to Carry Firearms—Personnel . of . the . [SSS] . who . are . authorized . by . the . United .Nations .and .who .are .issued .firearms .will .carry .such .weapons .only .when .they .are . on .duty .Under .normal .circumstances, .firearms .will .be .carried .by .senior .supervisory .

. chapter .V . 79

personnel, .by .investigators, .by .personnel .on .special .assignment, .and .by .security .officers . manning .posts .specially .designated .as .armed .posts ”

The .Tribunal .considered .that .the .use .of .the .word .“will” .in .the .first .sentence .of .section . 5 06 .made .it .apparent .that .the .Applicant .could .be .required .to .carry .a .firearm, .subject .to . the .limitations .of .the .clause .Moreover, .it .found .that .the .inclusion .of .the .phrase .“under . normal .circumstances” .implied .that .in .other, .less .normal .circumstances .other .officers . would .be .called .upon .to .carry .a .weapon .Finally, .as .it .fell .within .the .reasonable .discretion . of .the .Respondent .to .designate .posts .as .armed .posts, .the .Tribunal .determined .that .every . officer, .including .the .Applicant, .might .be .called .upon .to .bear .arms

With .respect .to .the .surrounding .circumstances .of .her .employment, .the .Tribunal .held . that .based .on .the .very .nature .of .her .position .as .a .Security .Officer, .the .Applicant .knew, . or .should .have .known, .that .carrying .a .firearm, .when .required, .was .a .condition .of .her . employment .Rejecting .the .Applicant’s .argument .that .carrying .a .firearm .ought .not .to .be . a .pre-requisite .to .performing .security .functions, .the .Tribunal .found .that .the .decision .to . arm .security .officers .is .a .policy .decision, .within .the .discretionary .authority .of .the .Secretary-General, .and .that .it .was .not .the .Tribunal’s .role .to .substitute .its .views .for .those .of .the . Secretary-General .or .the .General .Assembly .on .how .best .to .manage .the .Organization

Insofar .as .the .Applicant’s .claims .that .the .Respondent’s .decision .had .been .arbitrary . and .discriminatory .were .concerned, .the .Tribunal .recalled .its .longstanding .jurisprudence . that .it .would .not .substitute .its .judgement .for .that .of .the .Secretary-General .in .personnel . matters .unless .his .discretion .was .shown .to .have .been .vitiated .The .onus probandi .is .on .the . staff .member .making .such .allegations .and, .in .this .case, .the .Applicant .had .not .provided . the .necessary .proof .in .order .to .meet .her .burden

Accordingly, .the .Tribunal .rejected .the .Application .in .its...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL