Judgment No. 990
Decision
1. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING THE CLAIM THE COMPLAINANT ADDRESSED TO HIM ON 25 AUGUST 1988 IS SET ASIDE.
2. THE ILO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT AS FROM 1 MARCH 1987, AT THE DATE OF EACH PAYMENT OF PENSION, COMPENSATION IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PENSION SHE WAS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE AMOUNT SHE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED.
3. THE ARREARS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 10 PER CENT A YEAR.
4. THE ILO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 500 SWISS FRANCS IN COSTS.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. The scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the Staff Regulations, did not come into force until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension, however, was reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. The Tribunal holds that "the ILO is undoubtedly bound [...] by the provisions of the Staff Regulations so long as they remain in force and is therefore liable towards the complainant for the breach of them. That its difficulty is due to the stand taken by the fund cannot alter its liability as employer towards its staff."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
effective date; liability; organisation; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; provision; scale; pension; unjspf; fund regulations; pensionable remuneration; difference; payment; reduction of salary
Consideration 6
Extract:
"Having put the scale of pensionable remuneration into its own Staff Regulations, the ILO has a duty to ensure the payment of the corresponding benefits. The sole purpose of pensionable remuneration is the reckoning of the pension, and if the pension discounts the scale in the Staff Regulations because the organisation has entrusted the matter to another body, the ILO must make good the loss to its staff, who are entitled to have the regulations applied. Any difference of opinion there may be between the ILO and the fund is of no concern to the staff."
Keywords
injury; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; enforcement; pension; unjspf; pensionable remuneration; compensation
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal "may not order any increase in [the complainant's] pension in redress for the breach of the regulations since the body that determines the pension is outside its jurisdiction."
Keywords
competence; competence of tribunal; amount; reckoning; pension; unjspf; flaw
Summary
Extract:
The General Assembly of the United Nations brought in a new, lower scale of pensionable remuneration as from 1 January 1985. That scale, provided for in Article 3.1.1 of the ILO Staff Regulations, did not come into force for officials serving in the organization until 1 April 1985. The complainant's pension was nonetheless reckoned according to the new scale between 1 January and 31 March 1985. She challenges the Director-General's implied rejection of her internal complaint seeking to have her pension reckoned according to the old scale up to 31 March 1985 or, failing that, compensation. The Organization submits that the measure had come to her attention through various channels and that the complaint was out of time. The Tribunal holds that the Staff Regulations contained an explicit provision which set out the staff's rights. The staff were not told of any valid ilo decision not to abide by the Staff Regulations. The Organization's contention that the complaint is irreceivable is mistaken.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.1.1 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords
complaint; effective date; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules; amendment to the rules; provision; scale; pension; fund regulations; pensionable remuneration; difference; reduction of salary
| 
