Judgment No. 3741
The complaints are dismissed, as are the applications to intervene.
The complainants challenge the decision to cease treating the service differential as pensionable remuneration.
unjspf; pensionable remuneration; complaint dismissed
[I]t is noted that at various places in their brief the complainants refer to the UNJSPF’s CEO “decision” and “interpretation”. However, it is clear that the decision taken by the UN General Assembly […] to amend the definition of pensionable remuneration which did not include the service differential allowance as pensionable remuneration is the decision that gave rise to the amendment of Staff Rule […. ].
unjspf; pensionable remuneration
[I]t is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that an organization has a duty to verify the lawfulness of a decision of an external authority before incorporating that decision into its own legal order (see Judgment 2420, under 11, and the case cited therein).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2420
FAO knew from at least as early as November 2009 that the inclusion of an allowance such as the service differential that was not one of the recognized allowances in the UNJSPF Regulations as pensionable remuneration was under scrutiny. Additionally, under Article 3(a) of the UNJSPF Regulations FAO was obliged to comply with the Regulations and it risked having sanctions imposed or its membership in the UNJSPF terminated for violation of the Regulations if it did not act in a timely manner.