|
|
 |
|
|
Repatriation allowance (350,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Repatriation allowance
Total judgments found: 10
Judgment 4827
138th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the principles of statutory interpretation are well established in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 4681, consideration 5, 4477, consideration 4, 4145, consideration 4, 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4). Moreover, as the Tribunal stated in Judgment 3734, consideration 4, “[i]t is the obvious and ordinary meaning of the words in the provision that must be discerned and not just a phrase taken in isolation”.
[…] Given the plain language of the above provisions of Staff Rules 3.03.1(H)(3), 3.03.1(I), 6.01.1(B)(5) as well as Staff Rule 6.01.01 of AM.II/12 and their interrelationship, the phrase “five years of continuous service” as set forth in Staff Rule 6.01.1(B)(5) cannot be read in isolation. It must be interpreted as a period of service that satisfies the requirements contained in Staff Rule 3.03.1(I) and Staff Rule 6.01.01 of AM.II/12. Accordingly, in calculating the “five years of continuous service” for purposes of determining a staff member’s eligibility to receive a repatriation grant under Staff Rule 6.01.1(B)(5), the period of service under a Short-Term appointment shall not be counted. The Tribunal further finds that the above provisions are unambiguous and that the complainant’s reliance on the principle established in Judgments 3701, 2276 and 1755 that texts which are ambiguous are to be construed in favour of the staff member is therefore misplaced.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1755, 2276, 3310, 3701, 3734, 4145, 4477, 4681
Keywords:
interpretation; interpretation of rules; repatriation allowance;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 4604
135th Session, 2023
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to pay him a repatriation grant upon his separation from service.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; nationality; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 3293
116th Session, 2014
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the amount of the reinstallation allowance which was granted to him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; counterclaim; interpretation; refusal; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 3292
116th Session, 2014
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him a reinstallation allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; counterclaim; interpretation; refusal; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 3018
111th Session, 2011
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[A repatriation] grant [...] is intended to assist internationally recruited staff members in the efforts required of them if they decide, at the end of their employment, to return to their country of origin with the intention of establishing themselves there."
Keywords:
decision; definition; non-local status; official; place of origin; purpose; repatriation allowance; separation from service;
Judgment 2103
92nd Session, 2002
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7 and 10
Extract:
"An organisation may try by all legal means to recover any money a staff member may owe it when he or she leaves service. But that does not entitle it to suspend or block consideration of the staff member's pension entitlements. [...] However, [the organization] was right to defer consideration of the complainant's entitlement to a repatriation allowance."
Keywords:
debt; organisation's duties; pension; pension entitlements; repatriation allowance; separation from service; terminal entitlements;
Judgment 1251
74th Session, 1993
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was accused of misappropriating funds and summarily dismissed for misconduct. He claims payment of repatriation costs, to which he would not be entitled upon summary dismissal under Rule 109.9 (f). However, the Director-General agreed to deduct them from the sums which he allegedly owed the organization. The Tribunal holds that "since the dismissal was wrongful and the organization has failed to prove that the complainant owes it that sum, the claim succeeds."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: STAFF RULE 109.9 (F)
Keywords:
decision; disciplinary measure; discretion; executive head; repatriation allowance; right; serious misconduct; summary dismissal; termination of employment;
Judgment 959
66th Session, 1989
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under Article 11.15(a) of the ILO Staff Regulations "the complainant would be entitled to payment of the [repatriation] grant only if he had completed one year of service in Indonesia. His one-year contract began on 30 July 1986. But since he took up an appointment with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Bombay on 2 July 1987, less than a year after taking up duty with the ILO, he failed to complete the one year of service required. The claim fails."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 11.15(A) OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
condition; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 904
64th Session, 1988
Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
According to the CIPEC Staff Regulations, a reinstallation allowance is payable in an amount equivalent to a certain number of weeks' remuneration. The complainant served on a part-time basis. The Tribunal holds that it was proper for this to enter into the reckoning of the allowance.
Keywords:
part-time employment; reckoning; repatriation allowance;
Judgment 123
20th Session, 1968
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant gave as his permanent residence a city in the United States. This might mean either that he was recruited there or that he was supposed to spend his home leave there. "Being open to interpretation in either of these two ways, this is thus not decisive. What is decisive, however, is the fact that [the] complainant does not deny at the time of his recruitment that he was [...] in [...] the country of his duty station." It follows that he was locally recruited and that he is not entitled to claim payment of his travel expenses or a repatriation grant under the material provisions.
Keywords:
appointment; duty station; repatriation allowance; residence; right; travel expenses;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In approving the complainant's request for application for repatriation grant, the organisation misinterpreted the material provisions. Payment to the complainant was approved ex gratia. It was however subject to a provision which the organisation "implicitly waived [...] by refraining from claiming repayment of this amount in the course of the present procedure. [The] complainant's right to keep the money he has received is thus not in question."
Keywords:
ex gratia; recovery of overpayment; repatriation allowance; unjust enrichment;
|
|
|
|
|
