Judgment No. 506
Decision
1. The complainant shall have non-local status from 29 October 1975.
2. The FAO shall grant her the benefits of non-local status from 29 October 1975.
3. The FAO shall pay her US$2,000 as costs.
4. Her other claims are dismissed.
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [organization] refused the complainant non-local status, and she alleges unequal treatment on the grounds that others did obtain it. For the plea to succeed the complainant should have been in the same factual position as those she believes to have fared better." The solution, in this case, depends on a decisive date, about which there is doubt. The Tribunal "will give the complainant the benefit of the doubt" and conclude that she does qualify for non-local status.
Keywords
equal treatment; local status; non-local status
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The case is an important one, and the Tribunal awards the complainant costs even though she has not expressly claimed them."
Keywords
claim; costs
Consideration 5
Extract:
The organization adopted a more flexible approach in the application of the new rule: "Those [officials] appointed before the Finance Committee made its recommendation, who before had been informed of the possibility of qualifying for non-local status, or might have been, were still able to obtain such status despite the wording of the rule. There was strict application only to those appointed after the recommendation. The distinction between those appointed before and those appointed after rested on the fact that the former, unlike the latter, had or might have had the expectation of qualifying for non-local status some day."
Keywords
equal treatment; practice; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; enforcement; provision; legitimate expectation; appointment; promise; local status; non-local status; date; difference
| 
