UNPensionerIndia.com

Cause for Celebration - Open Letter to UN Retirees

2010-01-11T03:36:00.000-08:00

OPEN LETTER (V) TO THE UN RETIREES (1/3 LUMP SUM RECIPIENTS):

2010 – THE YEAR OF RECKONING?

Dear Colleagues:

At a time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here comes a candidate.

It appears that UN Disputes Tribunal (born 1 July 2009) has already cleared no less than 96 cases by the time the year 2009 came to a close! A record of sort!!

Having used this mode of communication to talk to the retiree colleagues and report on the state of affairs regarding our common cause appeal (Case # UNAT 2009-001), let us now bring you up to date on the so called further developments:

1. While our Common Cause Appeal # UNAT 2009-001 has long been submitted (27 Aug/30 Sept 2009) and Respondent’s (UNJSPF) reply received by 28 Oct 2009, we have not heard any news as to when our common cause appeal will be reviewed/hearing scheduled.

2. The official website of the UNAT & UNDT (UN Office of Administration of Justice – www.un.org/en/internaljustice) is seen being built with additional information made available on the internet.

3. Recent addition in the website is the listing (or shopping list) of cases considered by UNDT between July and December 2009. There are about 96 decisions/judgements (UNDT/2009/01 to 96); some of the cases were transferred from the earlier avatar JAB. Also, never mind the list misses out at least two cases (UNDT/2009-61 & 62).

4. Have reviewed a good randomised sample of 50 cases/decisions/judgements with the following findings:

(a) Most of the cases related to appointments, non-renewal of appointments and extension.

(b) 28 cases were rejected; five cases were recommended for mediation/management evaluation; four cases where further submissions were allowed for consideration or full hearing of the case was recommended; three cases where compensation was recommended; a number of cases were rejected because of procedural lapses.

(c) There was a case of sexual harassment and cultural insensitivity involving chief of office, incl a local police complaint by the national staff. Probably due to the uncomfortable nature of the case, mediation and resolution by mutual agreement was recommended. However, no compensation for local costs, nor any news what has finally happened. (Maybe the official is now enjoying a great retirement and/or maybe re-employed as consultant/advisor – the usual revolving door policy or the worldly wisdom: politics is the science and art of the possible!)

(d) Almost in all complaints about non-renewal, non-promotion, and HR related, it appears that the UNDT had had little influence on the management’s judgement and/or decision. The best the UNDT could do even in those cases of apparent abuse of authority, only some form of compensation could be offered.

(e) Right now there is no information on the results of several mediation efforts recommended.

(f) There seems a tendency to accept the management argument/contentions at face value; in other words, UNDT may not be able to do any special independent investigation into such matters, again without calling for help from the management itself!? This may also mean: UNDT’s capacity may be limited by design.

(g) In one case, the competence and independence of the JAB/UNDT judges were seen questioned, but no resolution!

(h) In one or two cases, the counsels for the staff were allowed to withdraw.

(i) There was at least one instance where UNDT had to make some modifications/corrections to his/her earlier oral judgement when the same was rendered into written words.

5. Based on these findings, maybe some observations are possible:

5.1 Since the UN staffs have neither recourse to the independent national judicial process nor any “real” legal defence support, they have to contend with the best of the worst situation at hand. Maybe this caused a majority of cases being rejected outright; or can we say that the UNDT decisions tend to favour management practices without any benefit of doubt to other side.

5.2 Seen from another angle, complaining staff may have been ill-informed, ill-equipped and ill-prepared in the pursuit of justice. This may be a reflection on the quality of staff recruited/trained and being brought into system in the first place or there are remediable gaps in the HRM practices and other internal systems.

6. If the new avatar UNDT & UNAT should have any impact in improving the internal justice system and to enhance quality assurance and standards (e.g. transparency, independence, open objectivity, fairness, equity and accountability), we need to see some real breakthroughs in the following areas:

(a) Close monitoring & evaluation of the functioning of the UNDT and UNAT processes and reports prepared every six months and place such findings on public domain;

(b) We need to keep remembering the socially inspired justice template: justice should be seen and should be seen to be done; many a culprit might escape the net, but not single innocent should be punished;

(c) This monitoring and evaluation should be done, inter alia, in the context of norms described in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

(d) A matrix of lessons learnt thru the cases processed by UNDT & UNAT and follow up actions recommended, together with an “action taken report” should be available in the public domain – at least twice a year.

(e) An efficient and effective mechanism to review regularly the performance of the UNDT/UNAT judges incl. their judicial erudition, mental propensities, biases, prejudices, etc. These are the most important aspects since the judges are appointed by the UN GA and no one else has any supervisory control nor any one person/group/committee seems entitled to judge the quality of their performance.

(f) Last but not the least, an effective and sufficient budgetary allocation should be in place to ensure that the new reformed internal justice system is not under-nourished, under-funded and handicapped, and do not suffer from the same kind of resource crunch that afflicted its earlier incarnations.

7. The noble laureate, Amartya Sen, in his latest book “The Idea of Justice” argues that “justice” cannot remain only as an ideal and beyond our grasp, but should actually guide our practical decisions and enhance our lives and faith in/on the system. If this is so, then UNAT and UNDT should be seen qualified/deserving to become beacon of our hopes and should facilitate a holistic approach to the decision-making (both the management and staff have responsibilities too in this area) and help remove at least most of the remediable injustices in the system and also in the convoluted human minds managing/manipulating/controlling the system.

Jai Ho!

S.P. Sundaram/V.Muthuswami/G.S. Srinivasan

Joint appellants of the Common Cause Appeal (case # UNAT 2009-001)

*******

Letter to UN Retirees on Common Cause

2009-12-31T03:24:00.000-08:00

Letter to UN Retirees on Common Cause

TED: Ideas worth spreading

2009-11-30T22:19:00.000-08:00

TED: Ideas worth spreading

Among many great things that can be learnt from ancient Eastern Wisdom is to gain an understanding for the following human fundamentals:

1. Who are we and why are we here?
2. What is the nature of human nature?
3. How and why should we be related to the planet on which we live?
4. How are we to live together satisfactorily and sensibly?
5. How are we to develop our individual potentialities?
and finally,
6. What is the relationship between living beings and nature, and how we nurture this relationship(?), so that we can validate our understanding to the question # (1) above.

One of the best choices for the UN retirees (or for that matter any retiree) to rediscover himself/herself and to strengthen our understanding and activity is by honestly answering the above questions.
Perhaps, exposure to or participation in the TED group (http://www.Ted.com/) could help to discover ourselves and spread the right message(s) for right living.
Jai Ho!
V.Muthuswami/Chennai, India

OPEN LETTER TO UN RETIREES (1/3 LUMP SUM RECIPIENTS)

2009-11-04T21:25:00.000-08:00

Dear UN Retirees (who are 1/3 lump recipients)

Probably some of you are aware that a number of retirees submitted a common cause appeal to the Standing Committee of the UNJSPB requesting restoration of full pension once the lump-sum amount + interest get fully recovered by UNJSPF in about 11-13 year period, thus ensuring equity among all pensioners. The Standing Committee turned down the request without even bothering to hear any of the appellants (a requirement under UN Disputes Tribunal) and decreed that the reduced pension shall remain for life.

Disappointed and not convinced of the justifiability of the decision, we have now filed a common cause appeal at the UN Appeals Tribunal as its inaugural case (Case # UNAT 2009-001) of its coming into being with a promise to uphold true justice. Have also appealed for oral hearing when the UNAT is ready to review the case.

Our appeal is based inter alia on the following principles:

1) As UN agency, UNJSPF regulations, rules and procedures/methods should remain consistent with the foundational principles of the UN, viz. UN Charter and UDHR (especially relevant to equity, fairness and Justice).

2) Nowhere in these regulations, forms et al, is there any explicit clause, statement or any mention to indicate life time denial of full pension (for 1/3 lump sum recipients). Is this not a very important element of any rule that should not be left for speculation?

3) Pension commutation being a usual procedure in civil service pension schemes, the provision to "commute" - meaning exchange or substitute for another - cannot remain open-ended for life but specifically quantified and articulated. This is not the case with UNJSPF regulations.

4) Since the lump sum is recovered by way of reduced monthly pension - what should this requirement be called except "indebtedness to the Pension Fund"? Is this indebtedness any different from any money owed to the Pension Fund under Article 43? If this indebtedness is in any manner different , then why is it not finding a separate/special mention in this Article 43?

5) Once the indebtedness to Pension Fund is fully paid, then why should not all pensioners be treated on the basis of equity? Is it something that the lump sum recipients have no business to remain alive beyond the originally estimated actuarial age of life expectancy? Is it not a "remediable injustice" that can be eliminated with reason and good governance?

6) Even the premature death of beneficiaries before they had repaid the lump sum does not drain the fund, since, had they lived their full life, they would have drawn the two-third pension, which is more than the one-third which the Fund doesn't get.

7) Contrary to imagined concerns, by restoring full pension to 1/3 lump sum recipients, no one, i.e., those who did not take the lump sum, will not lose one penny.

8) Under the present procedure, the Fund stands to gain an unconscionable amount of gains -- at the expense of a group of beneficiaries -- against all principles of fairness and morality.

9) Not confusing the above fundamentals with other fiduciary and economic issues, the real "remediable injustice" can always be addressed within the economic and other operational framework, without sacrificing basics - equity, fairness and justice.

Our hope and prayer is that our common cause appeal will be heard expeditiously and real justice is rendered in the not too distant future.

Please do share your comments and views as these could be of help should there be an opportunity (which we have requested) of arguing our common cause appeal.

S.P. Sundaram/V.Muthuswami/G.S.Srinivasan - Chennai, India
Appellants of the Common Cause Appeal and also

on behalf of UN retirees who value life and life's values
email: vmuthuswami@gmail.com; vmuthuswami@hotmail.com

UN General Assembly : A/RES/63/253 - Statutes of UN Disputes Tribunal & UN Appeals Tribunal

2009-11-03T04:35:00.001-08:00

Notes: Official website of UNAT still displays the old statute of the former UN Admin. Tribunal. Until it gets updated, you are welcome to refer to the "mother" document here. However, for full text of UN Gen. Assembly Resolution, please "google" UN Document # A/RES/63/253.

******

Annex I

Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal

Article 1

A tribunal is established by the present statute as the first instance of the twotier

formal system of administration of justice, to be known as the United Nations

Dispute Tribunal.

Article 2

1. The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

application filed by an individual, as provided for in article 3, paragraph 1, of the

present statute, against the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of

the United Nations:

(a) To appeal an administrative decision that is alleged to be in noncompliance

with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. The terms

“contract” and “terms of appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules

and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged

non-compliance;

(b) To appeal an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure;

mediation pursuant to article 8, paragraph 2, of the present statute.

2. The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

application filed by an individual requesting the Dispute Tribunal to suspend, during

the pendency of the management evaluation, the implementation of a contested

administrative decision that is the subject of an ongoing management evaluation,

where the decision appears prima facie to be unlawful, in cases of particular

urgency, and where its implementation would cause irreparable damage. The

decision of the Dispute Tribunal on such an application shall not be subject to

appeal.

3. The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to permit or deny leave to an

application to file a friend-of-the-court brief by a staff association.

4. The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to permit an individual who is

entitled to appeal the same administrative decision under paragraph 1 (a) of the

present article to intervene in a matter brought by another staff member under the

same paragraph.

5. The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

application filed against a specialized agency brought into relationship with the

United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Articles 57 and 63 of the

Charter of the United Nations or other international organization or entity

established by a treaty and participating in the common system of conditions of

service, where a special agreement has been concluded between the agency,

organization or entity concerned and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to

accept the terms of the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal, consonant with the

present statute. Such special agreement shall provide that the agency, organization

or entity concerned shall be bound by the judgements of the Dispute Tribunal and be

responsible for the payment of any compensation awarded by the Dispute Tribunal

in respect of its own staff members and shall include, inter alia, provisions

concerning its participation in the administrative arrangements for the functioning

of the Dispute Tribunal and concerning its sharing of the expenses of the Dispute

Tribunal. Such special agreement shall also contain other provisions required for the

Dispute Tribunal to carry out its functions vis-à-vis the agency, organization or

entity.

6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Dispute Tribunal has competence

under the present statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall decide on the matter.

7. As a transitional measure, the Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and

pass judgement on:

(a) A case transferred to it from a joint appeals board or a joint disciplinary

committee established by the United Nations, or from another similar body

established by a separately administered fund or programme;

(b) A case transferred to it from the United Nations Administrative Tribunal;

as decided by the General Assembly.

Article 3

1. An application under article 2, paragraph 1, of the present statute may be filed

by:

(a) Any staff member of the United Nations, including the United Nations

Secretariat or separately administered United Nations funds and programmes;

(b) Any former staff member of the United Nations, including the United

Nations Secretariat or separately administered United Nations funds and

programmes;

staff member of the United Nations, including the United Nations Secretariat or

separately administered United Nations funds and programmes.

2. A request for a suspension of action under article 2, paragraph 2, of the present

statute may be filed by an individual, as provided for in paragraph 1 of the present

article.

Article 4

1. The Dispute Tribunal shall be composed of three full-time judges and two

half-time judges.

2. The judges shall be appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation

of the Internal Justice Council in accordance with Assembl y resolution 62/228. No

two judges shall be of the same nationality. Due regard shall be given to

geographical distribution and gender balance.

3. To be eligible for appointment as a judge, a person shall:

(a) Be of high moral character; and

(b) Possess at least 10 years of judicial experience in the field of

administrative law, or the equivalent within one or more national jurisdictions.

4. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal shall be appointed for one non-renewable term

of seven years. As a transitional measure, two of the judges (one full-time judge and

one half-time judge) initially appointed, to be determined by drawing of lots, shall

serve three years and may be reappointed to the same Dispute Tribunal for a further

non-renewable term of seven years. A current or former judge of the United Nations

Appeals Tribunal shall not be eligible to serve in the Dispute Tribunal.

5. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal appointed to replace a judge whose term of

office has not expired shall hold office for the remainder of his or her predecessor ’s

term, and may be reappointed for one non-renewable term of seven years, provided

that the unexpired term is less than three years.

6. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal shall not be eligible for any appointment

within the United Nations, except another judicial post, for a period of five years

following his or her term of office.

7. The Dispute Tribunal shall elect a President.

8. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal shall serve in his or her personal capacity and

enjoy full independence.

9. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal who has, or appears to have, a conflict of

interest shall recuse himself or herself from the case. Where a party requests such

recusal, the decision shall be taken by the President of the Dispute Tribunal.

10. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal may only be removed by the General

Assembly in case of misconduct or incapacity.

11. A judge of the Dispute Tribunal may resign, by notifying the General

Assembly through the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The resignation

shall take effect from the date of notification, unless the notice of resignation

specifies a later date.

Article 5

The three full-time judges of the Dispute Tribunal shall exercise their functions in

New York, Geneva and Nairobi, respectively. However, the Dispute Tribunal may

decide to hold sessions at other duty stations, as required by its caseload.

Article 6

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall make the administrative

arrangements necessary for the functioning of the Dispute Tribunal, including

provisions for the travel and related costs of staff whose physical presence before

the Dispute Tribunal is deemed necessary by the Dispute Tribunal and for judges to

travel as necessary to hold sessions at other duty stations.

2. The Registries of the Dispute Tribunal shall be established in New York,

Geneva and Nairobi, each consisting of a Registrar and such other staff as

necessary.

3. The expenses of the Dispute Tribunal shall be borne by the United Nations.

4. Compensation ordered by the Dispute Tribunal shall be paid by the United

Nations Secretariat or separately administered United Nations funds and

programmes, as applicable and appropriate, or by the specialized agency,

organization or entity that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal.

Article 7

1. Subject to the provisions of the present statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall

establish its own rules of procedure, which shall be subject to approval by the

General Assembly.

2. The rules of procedure of the Dispute Tribunal shall include provisions

concerning:

(a) Organization of work;

(b) Presentation of submissions and the procedure to be followed in respect

thereto;

verbal or written statements made during the mediation process;

(d) Intervention by persons not party to the case whose rights may be

affected by the judgement;

(e) Oral hearings;

(f) Publication of judgements;

(g) Functions of the Registries;

(h) Procedure for summary dismissal;

(i) Evidentiary procedure;

(j) Suspension of implementation of contested administrative decisions;

(k) Procedure for the recusal of judges;

(l) Other matters relating to the functioning of the Dispute Tribunal.

Article 8

1. An application shall be receivable if:

(a) The Dispute Tribunal is competent to hear and pass judgement on the

application, pursuant to article 2 of the present statute;

(b) An applicant is eligible to file an application, pursuant to article 3 of the

present statute;

decision for management evaluation, where required; and

(d) The application is filed within the following deadlines:

(i) In cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is

required:

a. Within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the response

by management to his or her submission; or

b. Within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the relevant response

period for the management evaluation if no response to the request was

provided. The response period shall be 30 calendar days after the submission

of the decision to management evaluation for disputes arising at Headquarters

and 45 calendar days for other offices;

(ii) In cases where a management evaluation of the contested decision is not

required, within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of the

administrative decision;

(iii) The deadlines provided for in subparagraphs (d) (i) and (ii) of the present

paragraph shall be extended to one year if the application is filed by an y

person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff

member of the United Nations, including the United Nations Secretariat or

separately administered United Nations funds and programmes;

(iv) Where the parties have sought mediation of their dispute within the

deadlines for the filing of an application under subparagraph (d) of the present

paragraph, but did not reach an agreement, the application is filed within

90 calendar days after the mediation has broken down in accordance with the

procedures laid down in the terms of reference of the Mediation Division.

2. An application shall not be receivable if the dispute arising from the contested

administrative decision had been resolved by an agreement reached through

mediation. However, an applicant may file an application to enforce the

implementation of an agreement reached through mediation, which shall be

receivable if the agreement has not been implemented and the application is filed

within 90 calendar days after the last day for the implementation as specified in the

mediation agreement or, when the mediation agreement is silent on the matter, after

the thirtieth day from the date of the signing of the agreement.

3. The Dispute Tribunal may decide in writing, upon written request by the

applicant, to suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period of time and only in

exceptional cases. The Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for

management evaluation.

4. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of the present article, an application shall not be

receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the

contested administrative decision.

5. The filing of an application shall not have the effect of suspending the

implementation of the contested administrative decision.

6. An application and other submissions shall be filed in any of the official

languages of the United Nations.

Article 9

1. The Dispute Tribunal may order production of documents or such other

evidence as it deems necessary.

2. The Dispute Tribunal shall decide whether the personal appearance of the

applicant or any other person is required at oral proceedings and the appropriate

means for satisfying the requirement of personal appearance.

3. The oral proceedings of the Dispute Tribunal shall be held in public unless the

Dispute Tribunal decides, at its own initiative or at the request of either party, that

exceptional circumstances require the proceedings to be closed.

Article 10

1. The Dispute Tribunal may suspend proceedings in a case at the request of the

parties for a time to be specified by it in writing.

2. At any time during the proceedings, the Dispute Tribunal may order an interim

measure, which is without appeal, to provide temporary relief to either party, where

the contested administrative decision appears prima facie to be unlawful, in cases of

particular urgency, and where its implementation would cause irreparable damage.

This temporary relief may include an order to suspend the implementation of the

contested administrative decision, except in cases of appointment, promotion or

termination.

3. At any time during the deliberations, the Dispute Tribunal may propose to

refer the case to mediation. With the consent of the parties, it shall suspend the

proceedings for a time to be specified by it. If a mediation agreement is not reached

within this period of time, the Dispute Tribunal shall continue with its proceedings

unless the parties request otherwise.

4. Prior to a determination of the merits of a case, should the Dispute Tribunal

find that a relevant procedure prescribed in the Staff Regulations and Rules or

applicable administrative issuances has not been observed, the Dispute Tribunal

may, with the concurrence of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, remand

the case for institution or correction of the required procedure, which, in any case,

should not exceed three months. In such cases, the Dispute Tribunal may order the

payment of compensation for procedural delay to the applicant for such loss as may

have been caused by such procedural delay, which is not to exceed the equivalent of

three months’ net base salary.

5. As part of its judgement, the Dispute Tribunal may order one or both of the

following:

(a) Rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific

performance, provided that, where the contested administrative decision concerns

appointment, promotion or termination, the Dispute Tribunal shall also set an

amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the

rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific performance ordered,

subject to subparagraph (b) of the present paragraph;

(b) Compensation, which shall normally not exceed the equivalent of two

years’ net base salary of the applicant. The Dispute Tribunal may, however, in

exceptional cases order the payment of a higher compensation and shall provide the

reasons for that decision.

6. Where the Dispute Tribunal determines that a party has manifestly abused the

proceedings before it, it may award costs against that party.

7. The Dispute Tribunal shall not award exemplary or punitive damages.

8. The Dispute Tribunal may refer appropriate cases to the Secretary-General of

the United Nations or the executive heads of separately administered United Nations

funds and programmes for possible action to enforce accountability.

9. Cases before the Dispute Tribunal shall normally be considered by a single

judge. However, the President of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal may, within

seven calendar days of a written request by the President of the Dispute Tribunal,

authorize the referral of a case to a panel of three judges of the Dispute Tribunal,

when necessary, by reason of the particular complexity or importance of the case.

Cases referred to a panel of three judges shall be decided by a majority vote.

Article 11

1. The judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be issued in writing and shall

state the reasons, facts and law on which they are based.

2. The deliberations of the Dispute Tribunal shall be confidential.

3. The judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be binding upon the parties, but

are subject to appeal in accordance with the statute of the United Nations Appeals

Tribunal. In the absence of such appeal, they shall be executable following the

expiry of the time provided for appeal in the statute of the Appeals Tribunal.

4. The judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be drawn up in any of the

official languages of the United Nations, in two originals, which shall be deposited

in the archives of the United Nations.

5. A copy of the judgement shall be communicated to each party in the case. The

applicant shall receive a copy in the language in which the application was

submitted unless he or she requests a copy in another official language of the United

Nations.

6. The judgements of the Dispute Tribunal shall be published, while protecting

personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of the Tribunal.

Article 12

1. Either party may apply to the Dispute Tribunal for a revision of an executable

judgement on the basis of the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the

judgement was rendered, unknown to the Dispute Tribunal and to the party applying

for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The

application must be made within 30 calendar days of the discovery of the fact and

within one year of the date of the judgement.

2. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising therein from any accidental

slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Dispute Tribunal, either on its

own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

3. Either party may apply to the Dispute Tribunal for an interpretation of the

meaning or the scope of the final judgement, provided that it is not under

consideration by the Appeals Tribunal.

4. Once a judgement is executable under article 11, paragraph 3, of the present

statute, either party may apply to the Dispute Tribunal for an order for execution of

the judgement if the judgement requires execution within a certain period of time

and such execution has not been carried out.

Article 13

The present statute may be amended by decision of the General Assembly.

Annex II

Statute of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal

Article 1

A tribunal is established by the present statute as the second instance of the two-tier

formal system of administration of justice, to be known as the United Nations

Appeals Tribunal.

Article 2

1. The Appeals Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

appeal filed against a judgement rendered by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal in

which it is asserted that the Dispute Tribunal has:

(a) Exceeded its jurisdiction or competence;

(b) Failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it;

(d) Committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the

case; or

(e) Erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable

decision.

2. An appeal may be filed by either party (i.e., the applicant, a person making

claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased applicant, or the respondent) to a

judgement of the Dispute Tribunal.

3. The Appeals Tribunal may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the judgement of

the Dispute Tribunal. It may also issue all orders necessary or appropriate in aid of

its jurisdiction and consonant with the present statute.

4. In cases of appeal under paragraph 1 (e) of the present article, the Appeals

Tribunal shall be competent:

(a) To affirm, reverse or modify findings of fact of the Dispute Tribunal on

the basis of substantial evidence in the written record; or

(b) To remand the case to the Dispute Tribunal for additional findings of

fact, subject to paragraph 5 of the present article, if it determines that further

findings of fact are necessary.

5. In exceptional circumstances, and where the Appeals Tribunal determines that

the facts are likely to be established with documentary evidence, including written

testimony, it may receive such additional evidence if that is in the interest of justice

and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Where this is not the

case, or where the Appeals Tribunal determines that a decision cannot be taken

without oral testimony or other forms of non-written evidence, it shall remand the

case to the Dispute Tribunal. The evidence under this paragraph shall not include

evidence that was known to either party and should have been presented at the level

of the Dispute Tribunal.

6. Where the Appeals Tribunal remands a case to the Dispute Tribunal, it may

order that the case be considered by a different judge of the Dispute Tribunal.

7. For the purposes of the present article, “written record” means anything that

has been entered in the formal record of the Dispute Tribunal, including

submissions, evidence, testimony, motions, objections, rulings and the judgement,

and any evidence received in accordance with paragraph 5 of the present article.

8. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Appeals Tribunal has competence

under the present statute, the Appeals Tribunal shall decide on the matter.

9. The Appeals Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

appeal of a decision of the Standing Committee acting on behalf of the United

Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, alleging non-observance of the regulations of the

United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, submitted by:

(a) Any staff member of a member organization of the Pension Fund which

has accepted the jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal in Pension Fund cases who is

eligible under article 21 of the regulations of the Fund as a participant in the Fund,

even if his or her employment has ceased, and any person who has acceded to such

staff member’s rights upon his or her death;

(b) Any other person who can show that he or she is entitled to rights under

the regulations of the Pension Fund by virtue of the participation in the Fund of a

staff member of such member organization.

In such cases, remands, if any, shall be to the Standing Committee acting on behalf

of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board.

10. The Appeals Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass judgement on an

application filed against a specialized agency brought into relationship with the

United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Articles 57 and 63 of the

Charter of the United Nations or other international organization or entity

established by a treaty and participating in the common system of conditions of

service, where a special agreement has been concluded between the agency,

organization or entity concerned and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to

accept the terms of the jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal, consonant with the

present statute. Such special agreement shall provide that the agency, organization

or entity concerned shall be bound by the judgements of the Appeals Tribunal and

be responsible for the payment of any compensation awarded by the Appeals

Tribunal in respect of its own staff members and shall include, inter alia, provisions

concerning its participation in the administrative arrangements for the functioning

of the Appeals Tribunal and concerning its sharing of the expenses of the Appeals

Tribunal. Such special agreement shall also contain other provisions required for the

Appeals Tribunal to carry out its functions vis-a-vis the agency, organization or

entity. Such special agreement may only be concluded if the agency, organization or

entity utilizes a neutral first instance process that includes a written record and a

written decision providing reasons, fact and law. In such cases remands, if any, shall

be to the first instance process of the agency, organization or entity.

Article 3

1. The Appeals Tribunal shall be composed of seven judges.

2. The judges shall be appointed by the General Assembly on the

recommendation of the Internal Justice Council in accordance with General

Assembly resolution 62/228. No two judges shall be of the same nationality. Due

regard shall be given to geographical distribution and gender balance.

3. To be eligible for appointment as a judge, a person shall:

(a) Be of high moral character; and

(b) Possess at least 15 years of judicial experience in the field of

administrative law, or the equivalent within one or more national jurisdictions.

4. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal shall be appointed for one non-renewable

term of seven years. As a transitional measure, three of the judges initially

appointed, to be determined by drawing of lots, shall serve three years and may be

reappointed to the same Appeals Tribunal for a further non-renewable term of seven

years. A current or former judge of the Dispute Tribunal shall not be eligible to

serve in the Appeals Tribunal.

5. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal appointed to replace a judge whose term of

office has not expired shall hold office for the remainder of his or her predecessor ’s

term and may be reappointed for one non-renewable term of seven years, provided

that the unexpired term is less than three years.

6. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal shall not be eligible for any appointment

within the United Nations, except another judicial post, for a period of five years

following his or her term of office.

7. The Appeals Tribunal shall elect a President and two Vice-Presidents.

8. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal shall serve in his or her personal capacity and

enjoy full independence.

9. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal who has, or appears to have, a con flict of

interest shall recuse himself or herself from the case. Where a party requests such

recusal, the decision shall be taken by the President of the Appeals Tribunal.

10. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal may only be removed by the General

Assembly in case of misconduct or incapacity.

11. A judge of the Appeals Tribunal may resign, by notifying the General

Assembly through the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The resignation

shall take effect from the date of notification, unless the notice of resignation

specifies a later date.

Article 4

1. The Appeals Tribunal shall exercise its functions in New York. However, it

may decide to hold sessions in Geneva or Nairobi, as required by its caseload.

2. The Appeals Tribunal shall hold ordinary sessions at dates to be fixed by its

rules of procedure, subject to the determination of its President that there is a

sufficient number of cases to justify holding the session.

3. Extraordinary sessions may be convoked by the President, as required by the

caseload.

Article 5

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall make the administrative

arrangements necessary for the functioning of the Appeals Tribunal, including

provisions for the travel and related costs of staff whose physical presence before

the Appeals Tribunal is deemed necessary by the Appeals Tribunal and for judges to

travel as necessary to hold sessions in Geneva and Nairobi.

2. The Registry of the Appeals Tribunal shall be established in New York. It shall

consist of a Registrar and such other staff as necessary.

3. The expenses of the Appeals Tribunal shall be borne by the United Nations.

4. Compensation ordered by the Appeals Tribunal shall be paid by the United

Nations Secretariat or separately administered United Nations funds and

programmes, as applicable and appropriate, or by the specialized agency,

organization or entity that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal.

Article 6

1. Subject to the provisions of the present statute, the Appeals Tribunal shall

establish its own rules of procedure, which shall be subject to approval by the

General Assembly.

2. The rules of procedure of the Appeals Tribunal shall include provisions

concerning:

(a) Election of the President and Vice-Presidents;

(b) Composition of the Appeals Tribunal for its sessions;

(d) Presentation of submissions and the procedure to be followed in respect

thereto;

(e) Procedures for maintaining the confidentiality and inadmissibility of

verbal or written statements made during the mediation process;

(f) Intervention by persons not party to the case whose rights may have been

affected by the judgement of the Dispute Tribunal and whose rights might therefore

also be affected by the judgement of the Appeals Tribunal;

(g) The filing of friend-of-court briefs, upon motion and with the permission

of the Appeals Tribunal;

(h) Oral proceedings;

(i) Publication of judgements;

(j) Functions of the Registry;

(k) Procedure for the recusal of judges;

(l) Other matters relating to the functioning of the Appeals Tribunal.

Article 7

1. An appeal shall be receivable if:

(a) The Appeals Tribunal is competent to hear and pass judgement on the

appeal, pursuant to article 2, paragraph 1, of the present statute;

(b) The appellant is eligible to file the appeal, pursuant to article 2,

paragraph 2, of the present statute; and

judgement of the Dispute Tribunal or, where the Appeals Tribunal has decided to

waive or suspend that deadline in accordance with paragraph 3 of the present article,

within the period specified by the Appeals Tribunal.

2. For purposes of applications alleging non-observance of the regulations of the

United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund arising out of a decision of the United

Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, an application shall be receivable if filed within

90 calendar days of receipt of the Board’s decision.

3. The Appeals Tribunal may decide in writing, upon written request by the

applicant, to suspend or waive the deadlines for a limited period of time and only in

exceptional cases. The Appeals Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines

for management evaluation.

4. Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of the present article, an application shall not be

receivable if it is filed more than one year after the judgement of the Dispute

Tribunal.

5. The filing of appeals shall have the effect of suspending the execution of the

judgement contested.

6. An appeal and other submissions shall be filed in any of the official languages

of the United Nations.

Article 8

1. The Appeals Tribunal may order production of documents or such other

evidence as it deems necessary, subject to article 2 of the present statute.

2. The Appeals Tribunal shall decide whether the personal appearance of the

appellant or any other person is required at oral proceedings and the appropriate

means to achieve that purpose.

3. The judges assigned to a case will determine whether to hold oral proceedings.

4. The oral proceedings of the Appeals Tribunal shall be held in public unless the

Appeals Tribunal decides, at its own initiative or at the request of either party, that

exceptional circumstances require the proceedings to be closed.

Article 9

1. The Appeals Tribunal may order one or both of the following:

(a) Rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific

performance, provided that, where the contested administrative decision concerns

appointment, promotion or termination, the Appeals Tribunal shall also set an

amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the

rescission of the contested administrative decision or specific performance ordered,

subject to subparagraph (b) of the present paragraph;

(b) Compensation, which shall normally not exceed the equivalent of two

years’ net base salary of the applicant. The Appeals Tribunal may, however, in

exceptional cases order the payment of a higher compensation and shall provide the

reasons for that decision.

2. Where the Appeals Tribunal determines that a party has manifestly abused the

appeals process, it may award costs against that party.

3. The Appeals Tribunal shall not award exemplary or punitive damages.

4. At any time during the proceedings, the Appeals Tribunal may order an interim

measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and

to maintain consistency with the judgement of the Dispute Tribunal.

5. The Appeals Tribunal may refer appropriate cases to the Secretary-General of

the United Nations or executive heads of separately administered United Nations

funds and programmes for possible action to enforce accountability.

Article 10

1. Cases before the Appeals Tribunal shall normally be reviewed by a panel of

three judges and shall be decided by a majority vote.

2. Where the President or any two judges sitting on a particular case consider that

the case raises a significant question of law, at any time before judgement is

rendered, the case may be referred for consideration by the whole Appeals Tribunal.

A quorum in such cases shall be five judges.

3. The judgements of the Appeals Tribunal shall be issued in writing and shall

state the reasons, facts and law on which they are based.

4. The deliberations of the Appeals Tribunal shall be confidential.

5. The judgements of the Appeals Tribunal shall be binding upon the parties.

6. The judgements of the Appeals Tribunal shall be final and without appeal,

subject to the provisions of article 11 of the present statute.

7. The judgements of the Appeals Tribunal shall be drawn up in any of the

official languages of the United Nations, in two originals, which shall be deposited

in the archives of the United Nations.

8. A copy of the judgement shall be communicated to each party in the case. The

applicant shall receive a copy in the language in which the appeal was submitted

unless he or she requests a copy in another official language of the United Nations.

9. The judgements of the Appeals Tribunal shall be published, while protecting

personal data, and made generally available by the Registry of the Tribunal.

Article 11

1. Subject to article 2 of the present statute, either party may apply to the Appeals

Tribunal for a revision of a judgement on the basis of the discovery of a decisive

fact which was, at the time the judgement was rendered, unknown to the Appeals

Tribunal and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance

was not due to negligence. The application must be made within 30 calendar days of

the discovery of the fact and within one year of the date of the judgement.

2. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes, or errors arising therein from any accidental

slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Appeals Tribunal, either on its

own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

3. Either party may apply to the Appeals Tribunal for an interpretation of the

meaning or scope of the judgement.

4. Where the judgement requires execution within a certain period of time and

such execution has not been carried out, either party may apply to the Appeals

Tribunal for an order for execution of the judgement.

Article 12

The present statute may be amended by decision of the General Assembly.

END

Pensionable remuneration - High-Level Committee on Management

2009-11-01T21:59:00.000-08:00

Pensionable remuneration - High-Level Committee on Management

Notes:

Here is the website from the "higher management" of UN on the historical reviews/developments concerning pensionable remuneration, which forms the basis for pension payment calculation.

Hope this site gets up-dated as the information provided herein goes only upto 2006. Nonetheless, this is an interesting website for those who are interested in knowing what goes on within the corridors of UN, incl its conference rooms.

Appreciate your comments on the contents of the website, in regard to usefulness and relevance. Thanks

UNJSPF's Response to Our Common Cause Appeal submitted as of 28 Oct 2009

2009-10-30T05:55:00.000-07:00

BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS

APPEALS TRIBUNAL

COMMON CAUSE APPEAL

S.P. SUNDARAM (APPLICANT 1), V. MUTHUSWAMI (APPLICANT 2)

AND G.S. SRINIVASAN (APPLICANT 3)

ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF OTHER RETIREES

APPLICANT

UNITED NATIONS JOINT STAFF PENSION BOARD

RESPONDENT

Statement of the issue

1. This case concerns an appeal by a number of retired employees of the United Nations and other member organizations, who are now in receipt of pension benefits from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (“UNJSPF” or the “Fund”). The appeal is against the decision of the Standing Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board at its meeting in July 2009 to uphold the decision by the Chief Executive Officer of the Fund to deny the Applicants’ request to end, after a certain number of years, the reduction in the UNJPSF pension benefits of retirees who at the time of separation had exercised the option to commute into a lump sum a portion of their pension benefit entitlement in accordance with article 28 (g) of the UNJSPF Regulations.

Statement of facts

2. The three applicants who submitted the appeal on their own behalf and behalf of other retirees have been in receipt of a reduced UNJPSF monthly pension in accordance with Article 28 of the UNJSPF Regulations, because at the time they separated from the service of their respective former employing organizations, they each opted to commute a portion of their UNJSPF pension benefit entitlement into a one-time lump-sum that was payable (and actually paid) to them immediately by the UNJSPF.

3. In a letter sent to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Fund on 22 March 2009 (Annex 5), Applicant 1 requested that the reduction imposed on periodic UNJSPF pension benefits on account of a partial lump-sum commutation should be ended "once the indebtedness was cleared".

4. In an e-mail response sent on 5 April 2009 to Applicant 1 and Applicant 2 (Annex 6), the Fund's CEO confirmed, inter alia, that "without leaving any discretion to the Fund's CEO, the UNJSPF Regulations require that, for those UNJSPF retirees who opt for the immediate one-third lump-sum commutation of their otherwise payable UNJSPF retirement benefit, the one-third reduction in the benefit payable be applied for the lifetime of the retiree" and that to establish the commutation amount "the calculation is done on an actuarial basis". The CEO added that Applicant 1 and Applicant 2 were free to lodge an appeal pursuant to Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules.

5. Following further communications exchanged between the CEO and Applicant 1, which were copied to a number of other UNJSPF retirees, the CEO received from Applicant 1 a formal request for review by the Standing Committee (Annex 1 of the Applicants’ submission). Between 21 May 2009 and 26 June 2009, identically worded formal requests for review regarding the same subject were also received from 40 other UNJSPF retirees. In addition to the formal requests, the Fund secretariat also received e-mail messages and letters from a number of UNJSPF retirees, expressing their support for the appeals that had been filed.

6. The Standing Committee of the Fund considered the case at its 191st Meeting held on 15 July 2009 and determined that:

a) The decision by the Chief Executive Officer of the Fund to deny the application to end, after a certain number of years, the reduction in the UNJPSF pension benefits of retirees who at the time of separation had exercised the option to commute into a lump sum a portion of their pension benefit entitlement in accordance with article 28 (g) of the UNJSPF Regulations was fully compliant with the relevant UNJSPF Regulations; and

b) Reductions in UNJSPF pension benefits on account of optional lump-sum commutations remain in effect for the lifetime of the UNJSPF retirees concerned.

Respondent’s legal arguments

7. The following provisions in the UNJSPF Regulations govern generally the partial lump-sum commutation option:

Article 1(f) - "Commute" shall mean cause to be converted and paid in a lump sum part or the whole of a benefit otherwise payable at periodic intervals, according to the actuarial tables of the Fund.

Article 28(g) - A benefit payable at the standard annual rate may be commuted by the participant into a lump sum subject to the following limitations and to supplementary article D, where applicable:

(i) If the rate is 300 dollars or more, the amount of the lump sum may not exceed the smaller of:

(A) The actuarial equivalent of one third of the benefit; or

(B) The actuarial equivalent of one third of the maximum benefit that would be payable to a participant retiring at the normal retirement age, on the same date as the participant, with a final average remuneration equal to the pensionable remuneration on that date for the top step of level P‑5 on the scale of pensionable remuneration in appendix B below;

(ii) Nevertheless, if the amount calculated under (i) above is less than the amount of the participant's own contributions, then the benefit may be commuted to the extent of the latter amount;

(iii) If the rate is less than 1000 dollars, the benefit may be commuted to the extent of its full actuarial equivalent; if a participant is married, the prospective benefit payable to his or her spouse may also be commuted at the standard annual rate of such benefit.

Article 29(c) The benefit may be commuted by the participant into a lump sum to the extent specified in article 28(g) for a retirement benefit.

8. It is therefore very clear that, under the UNJSPF Regulations, when a UNJSPF participant upon retirement makes a personal choice and elects to exercise the option to commute a portion of the UNJSPF pension entitlement into an actuarially calculated lump sum, the resultant reduction in the UNJSPF pension will then remain in effect for the lifetime of that UNJSPF retiree. It should be noted that such a commutation and the ensuing reduction in the benefit does not have an impact on any potential survivor’s benefits. At paragraph 23 of their submission, the Applicants refer to Article 43 of the UNJSPF Regulations (“Recovery of Indebtedness to the Fund”) in relation to the above provisions concerning commutation. Article 43 addresses situations where the Fund makes an (actual) overpayment to a beneficiary and is required to recover the sum paid since there is no entitlement and no payments are due to, or on account of, a UNJSPF participant or beneficiary. This provision has no relevance to the lump-sum commutation, which provides for the immediate payment of a pension entitlement, rather than one that would otherwise be payable at periodic intervals.

9. The UNJSPF is a defined-benefit type pension plan. In a defined-benefit pension plan the employer promises the employee on retirement a periodic benefit that is predetermined or “defined” by a formula which considers the employee’s earnings history, years of service and age, rather than resulting from what the employee and employer contributed and the investment returns. Participants in the Fund who are due to be separated from their employing organizations and are entitled under article 28 of the UNJSPF Regulations to receive a retirement benefit upon reaching normal retirement age or those who have reached the age of 55, but have not reached normal retirement age and choose an early retirement under article 29, are required by the Fund to submit their payment instructions on Form PENS.E/7 (Annex 7). The form offers participants the option to receive a full pension or full early retirement pension as the case may be, or they can receive up to one-third as a lump sum and the balance as a reduced periodic monthly benefit. Hence, commutation, an option for UNJSPF participants, is a one time, permanent conversion of the right to a lifetime periodic retirement benefit into a lump-sum payable to the beneficiary immediately at the time of separation from service. The sum is calculated on the basis of actuarial factors that take into account relevant interest rates and the beneficiary’s life expectancy, in accordance with article 1 (f) of the UNJSPF Regulations. Commutation does not create any benefit that might be due but unpaid by the Pension Fund. The UNJSPF Regulations permit participants to opt for a partial lump sum commutation of the retirement benefit; however, the Regulations also require that the one-third reduction in the benefit is applied for the life time of the retiree.

10. As a defined benefit plan, UNJSPF pools assets and shares the assumed collective risk for the eventual UNJSPF pension liabilities among all its participants (as at 31 December 2008 112,804), drawn from the Fund’s 23 member organizations. The Fund uses those pooled assets to provide benefits to staff members globally (periodic benefits in payment as at 31 December 2008 to 59,945 beneficiaries in 190 countries). The equal contribution and benefit levels are determined without regard to the identity of the member organization that employs the staff concerned. Likewise, nationality, former duty station or country of residence has no relevance to entitlements under the UNJSPF Regulations. Country of residence is relevant only under the UNJSPF Pension Adjustment System, in case the beneficiary opts for the so called two- track pension adjustment system. All UNJSPF participants contribute the same percentage of their pensionable remuneration regardless of their age, length of service, career progress, marital status, whether they have minor children or not, and irrespective of the location of their duty station.

11. Similarly, the commutation amounts are determined on the basis of factors that account for interest rates and life expectancy for the Fund population as a whole. The aggregated risk on a collective group basis means that, for example, life expectancy is an average: the actuarial calculations presuppose that some participants will die before, and others after, reaching the projected life expectancy. Therefore, retiring participants who die shortly after commuting part of their pension into a lump sum realize -at the expense of the Fund - a significant economic gain, which is balanced by those who live substantially longer than the projected life expectancy. The request of the Applicants would require a fundamental change in the level of contributions from participants and member organizations to fund the type of benefits requested by the Applicants. Obviously, it would also require changes to the UNJSPF Regulations, which – pursuant to Article 49 of the UNJSPF Regulations - can only be made by the United Nations General Assembly after recommendations made by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board (“Pension Board”). The UNJSPF system is non-discriminatory and fair to all participants and UNJSPF secretariat administers it in a consistent and equal manner world-wide, without any violation of human rights or ILO Conventions. The request of the Applicants would, in turn, be unfair to those retirees who opted to take the full pension and no lump sum, if the lump sum were to be restored to those retirees who opted for the lump sum as they would be getting an additional benefit - one that has no basis in the current Regulations.

12. Under the authority of the Pension Board, the Pension Fund is entrusted to provide retirement, death, disability and other benefits and related services to its participants, retirees and beneficiaries. To meet its long-term commitments, the Fund must ensure an adequate level of investment return on its assets while mindful of the approved risk tolerance philosophy and the requirements posed by its liabilities. The UNJSPF has in place a system for oversight of its assets and liabilities, which includes the Committee of Actuaries. The Committee of Actuaries consists of seven independent actuaries selected from the five different regions of the world. In addition to reviewing and approving the actuarial assumptions, which are also reported to the Pension Board and the UN General Assembly, the Committee of Actuaries also analyzes the biennial actuarial valuations of the Fund and advises the Pension Board on other actuarial questions arising out of the operations of the Fund’s Regulations. When the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board reviews the actuarial report, it recommends appropriate action, if any, dependant on the results of the valuation. Several interest groups in the Pension Board, which has a tri-partite membership, regularly propose changes to the plan design of the Fund on the basis of the actuarial evaluation, i.e., actuarial surplus or deficit.

13. When administering and managing public funds, the UNJSPF is obliged to rigorously follow its Rules and Regulations in all cases. The Fund cannot assume financial risks and responsibilities other that those that arise on a group basis from service in a UNJSPF member organization with concurrent contributions. Consequently, and in fairness to all other Fund participants, there is no scope for negotiation with any particular interest group. Neither the Chief Executive Officer nor any other person or entity of the Fund has discretionary authority to waive or modify the pension benefit that is payable to a UNJSPF retiree in conformity with the UNJSPF Regulations, Rules and Pension Adjustment System. UNJSPF retirees have an active voice through FAFICS (Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants) which has the right to participate in meetings of the Pension Board and its Standing Committee, as well as other inter-sessional groups of the Board. Indeed, the Applicants could have pursued this alternative avenue if they wished to change the current UNJSPF Regulations.

14. At paragraph 29 of the Application, the Applicants have given a number of reasons as to why they opted for commutation of a portion of their pension benefits, including repatriation and resettlement back in their home country, and the fact that they were aware that commutation is a feature of some civil service pension schemes. The Respondent notes that employees of the United Nations who return to their home countries upon separation from service are provided with a repatriation grant to allow them to settle back home. Further, there is nothing in the UNJSPF Regulations, Rules and Pension Adjustment System that gives the expectation that the lump sum that is commuted may be restored; an assumption based on the policy of another entity is therefore erroneous. Quite clearly, the life-time reduction of a UNJSPF periodic benefit is based on the definition of the term “commute” in article 1 (f) of the UNJSPF Regulations. The Regulations of the Fund and the payment instructions signed by participants are clear about the implications of the option to commute up to one-third of a retiree’s pension benefit: the remainder is paid as a monthly benefit.

15. The Applicants have cited as the basis of their request the policy of the Government of India to restore commuted pensions of civilian employees and Defence employees, as well as provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have also asserted that some of the national civil service pension schemes limit the period of commutation, however, no examples of other national schemes have been provided. The Respondent’s research into the issue has not identified examples of other national schemes that restore commuted portions of pensions. The 1987 Supreme Court Judgment provided by the Applicants (Annex 4) that led to the Government of India’s adoption of the policy to restore commuted pensions does not provide an actuarial basis for the decision. Rather, it is stated at page 4 of the judgment that the Government took the decision “as an act of goodwill to pensioners and to extend to them some measure of relief in the evening of their lives”. Further it should be noted that the Government of India introduced a defined contribution pension system for all new government employees entering government service from 2004 and which from 1 May 2009 has been made available to all Indian citizens aged between 18 and 55. A defined contribution plan does not generally promise a specific amount of benefits at retirement. In these plans, the employee or the employer (or both) contribute to the employee's individual account under the plan, sometimes at a set rate. The value of the account will fluctuate due to the changes in the value of the investments. The main reason cited for the new system adopted by the Government of India was the cost of the defined benefit pension system, which was found to be a huge financial burden. The benefit that the Applicants are seeking to introduce within the UNJSPF, has, therefore, not been included in the new Indian Government national pension system in effect since 2004 for its Government employees.

16. The Respondent notes that the only basis to pay UNJSPF benefits is the provisions in the UNJSPF Regulations; no national legislation has any relevance to the Fund, which is a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly and which enjoys the same privileges and immunities as the Organization itself. The way to amend the UNJSPF Regulations has been described above. As noted above, the Government of India has taken steps to change its national pension system due to the high cost of the defined benefit scheme that was in place prior to 2004, and which included the feature that the Applicants are seeking to adopt for the UNJSPF. The actuarial implications of the request by the Applicants are likely to be very substantive to the Fund. In addition to inequality it would create, the cost is probably the reason why such proposals have never been advanced in the Pension Board by any constituent groups, including FAFICS. Neither has the Committee of Actuaries made proposals to that effect.

Conclusions and pleas

17. On the basis of the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Applicants’ appeal be rejected on the basis that the decision by the CEO of the Fund to deny the Applicants’ request to end, after a certain number of years, the reduction in the UNJPSF pension benefits of retirees who at the time of separation had exercised the option to commute into a lump sum a portion of their pension benefit entitlement in accordance with article 28 (g) of the UNJSPF Regulations was fully compliant with the relevant UNJSPF Regulations. In addition, the Tribunal is requested to uphold the decision of the Standing Committee to confirm that reductions in UNJSPF pension benefits on account of optional lump-sum commutations remain in effect for the lifetime of the UNJSPF retirees concerned.

18. The Applicants’ request had no basis in the UNJSPF Regulations, and the Fund is obliged to strictly follow the Regulations. Any deviation would first require a change to the Regulations and those proposals are to be channelled through the Pension Board to the UN General Assembly. The Respondent respectfully requests that the application be rejected in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: 28 October 2009

__________________________

Bernard Cochemé

Chief Executive Officer, UNJSPF

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index

2009-10-28T21:08:00.000-07:00

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index
(click above for a wealth of infn)

A most interesting report. Take a good look and try and review the key findings how each of the countries finds itself in relation to chosen other(s)! As you compare yours with several others, this can explain some of our background problems.

Happily, India is ranked (45) far above China (75)! You know why, Indians seem more prosperous "spiritually"!

Have a nice Day! Enjoy!

Akshya Trust

2009-10-28T19:15:00.000-07:00

Akshya Trust
(Click here if you wish to participate in mitigating one of the worst forms of human sufferings -
mentally deranged)

Of all human pains and sufferings, the most cruel would probably be to suffer from "mental illness", not being aware of oneself, one's conditions and life situation (as you see being described in the above website).

The real life heros are those who are prepared to spare some part of their time, efforts and resources, like what Krishnan of Madurai has been doing here, out of human compassion and kindness for the sake of these people, who are disowned by the society and dispossesed by the cruel acts of institutionalised governance and justice system of this great democracy.

As UN Pensioners your kindness and great compassion could help such worthwhile causes to help a helpless fellow human being, to live and pass away in grace and dignity. (By visiting the "Akshya Trust" site, you can have all details). God Bless the helping soul.

OM Shanthi

Overview of the UN Global Compact

2009-10-27T21:59:00.000-07:00

Overview of the UN Global Compact
(Please click and open to find the details)

Notes:

Among several worthwhile UN initiatives, this may be one of the useful and beneficial to all (at least for most) world citizens.

As long as we "live" in a human frame, we cannot avoid working for livelihood, even just to be alive. To be alive means to be interacting with others, both sentinal and non-sentinal beings. If we can do this with a conscious awareness of the innate cosmic order, then there could probably be less of a need for conflict in understanding global issues, and greater mutual respect, understanding and accommodation in finding solutions beneficial to all, incl for the planet that is our only home!

Please get involved with your contribution, even your healthy mental vibrations would help.

Jai Ho!

UNPensionerIndia

Anticorruption and Integrity: ADB fighting fraud and corruption in Asia and the Pacific - ADB.org

2009-10-26T23:31:00.000-07:00

Anticorruption and Integrity: ADB fighting fraud and corruption in Asia and the Pacific - ADB.org

Notes:

If there is one single problem that saps human progress and development, that can only be this "learned" disease called "corruption and fraud", normally infect combined with "AIG" parasite (Arrogance, Incompetence and Greed).

Our science has advanced over years to prevent, fight and eliminate many of physical/mental/emotional diseases and illnesses that survive because of external sources and environment. There are all kinds of medicines, therapies, exercises, etc. to help mankind.

However, when it comes to "corruption and fraud", no medicine or therapy could help, because it is in-born side-kick with our unique human endowment called desire + freedom of choice. In order to cure this difficult/dangerous illness, there is only one solution:
right-upbringing and right value-based education, that help bring about an equilibrium in our mental faculty to challenge and possibly overcome "likes and dislikes" and its (mind's) ability to see

"me" in "you" and "you" in "me".

Fortunately, it is a kind of "new skill" that can also be learnt and imbued willingly and make human beings capable of sensing life fulfilment

by being corruption/fraud free!

Anyway, please enjoy learning what the Asian Development Bank is trying to do bring about human governance based on individual integrity.

Jai Ho!

United Nations Global Issues - Home

2009-10-26T22:37:00.000-07:00

United Nations Global Issues - Home

www.un.org/en/globalissues/index.shtml
Notes:

Needless to be said, there are a number of global issues on which the experience and wisdom of UN retirees could make valuble contribution.

Aside from physical and financial aspects, these esteemed retiree groups, rich in collective experience, can think of out-of-box and creative solutions to problems facing humanity today.

It is time UN establishes an institutionalised arrangement to tap into those resources. Such avenues will be a win-win situtation; a sense of fulfilment for the UN retirees and a wealth of creative ideas for action to UN at no cost or least costly. Let the UN bureaucracy be creative and open for ways to make this planet a better place to live and pass.

OM Shanthi!

2009-10-07T00:11:00.001-07:00

A SUBMISSION TO UNJUSTICE FRONTPAGERS

IN REGARD TO COMMON CAUSE APPEAL TO UNAT

CASE # 2009-001

(S. P. Sundaram – 30 September 2009)

(Note: Sometime ago, Mr Merrill Cassell (former Budget Director of UNICEF) raised some queries questioning the validity of the common cause appeal asking for the restoration of full pension for 1/3 lump sum recipients once the lump-sum got recovered by UNJSPF with generous interest over a period of 11+ years. Our Senior citizen/UN retiree, Mr Sundaram, prepared the following note answering his queries, those of some relevance.

No one can deny the right to any individual in taking responsibility for one's life; and change the mindset from victim-hood to become a co-creator of a just and orderly society, incl. UNJSPF setup, fostering human values of caring and sharing).

Thank you for your coverage of our common cause Appeal, in your website, www.unjustice.org. You have done yeoman service in highlighting the various developments in detail, to ensure UN justice does not equate to Injustice.

You have rightly quoted extensively from friend Merrill Cassell and his various assertions, based on mere conjecture and “gut feeling” rather than on hard and incontrovertible facts and figures to substantiate or case histories. Rather sad! I hope you will give me space for dissecting his misleading statements.

Firstly, I have been in some correspondence with Mr. Cassell. He made the same “judgemental statements” which I seriously countered, for which he is yet to answer me direct, point by point, except to close the discussion with “we agree to disagree”; however, he continues to indulge in “blogging”with imaginary people with the same contested (by me) assertions and pontifications! He may have been a very senior official in the UN family (a fact which he never forgets to project), but that doesn’t make him the “fountain of wisdom”. Nor does one prove a point as fact by simply repeating “it must be true because I say so” I would (as you would, no doubt, too) need actual – not manufactured -- facts and figures from Mr Cassell, especially, from a former Budget Director.

He makes a general statement that the restoration of full pension will not be “financially prudent, ethical or fair”. Come, come, Mr. Cassell, where are the facts? I daresay the facts would prove otherwise. Neither he, nor the CEO of the Pension Fund, whom I had challenged to lay bare all the facts relating to the lump sum operation have come forward except to repeat, parrot-like, the same false assertions and irrelevant sources in support.

Take the “not financially prudent” argument. Firstly, there is a document in the UNJSPF records – I have seen it – in which the Fund’s own actuaries, in one of their reviews had stated that the lump sum is fully recovered in 13 years, after which the beneficiaries may be entitled to full pension. If the document exists (and not destroyed) no one dares produce it except being in a state of total denial. If the actuarial review is correct (who will call them to give evidence and spill the beans?), what the actuaries say demolishes the argument “not financially prudent”. Yes, the actuaries who assessed the level of contributions, the level of benefits, the amount of the lump sum and the amount of deductions needed, supposedly correctly, can’t be wrong in this single instance.

Furthermore, many Governments, mainly former British colonies, have instituted some sort of lump sum scheme. India, for instance, has had the system for over 75 years (during and after British Rule) with the automatic restoration of full pension after 15 years. And mind you, India, from the British days, has had a wealth of financial wizards, ace actuaries, legal luminaries and administrative giants (of Mr. Cassell’s ilk, some of whom have since adorned the high offices in the UN and other international bodies) and what they had designed had stood the test of time and the scheme has been financially stable, viable and workable even to the present day. And mind you, India has had one of the highest increases in the life expectancy which could have upset all actuarial calculations. What better proof you need to totally discredit the spurious theory of Mr. Cassell et al? To argue that UN Pension Fund is not like other national pension schemes (like the Indian model), but is a different animal, is too frivolous to consider. Furthermore., there is the Noblemaire Principle, the guiding philosophy being that UN staff (naturally, including retirees) terms must be modelled on the best among the national civil services. If the Indian pension scheme’s terms are among the best on offer (there may be others which may even be better), UNJSPF should at least match that, viz., restore the full pension after 15 years.

As regards the “not ethical” stand of Mr. Cassell, what kind of ethics are we talking about? The ethics of the UN Pension Fund’s implementation of a policy which is nowhere sanctioned by any of the Fund’s own Rules, or which is in violation of its own “recovery of indebtedness” Rule? Or the ethics of the Fund set up for the benefit of UN Retirees, making money on the backs of some of the beneficiaries? Or the ethics of withholding of vital information on the Actuarial Tables (and actuarial recommendations) governing the commutation of pensions? Or again, the ethics of the Standing Committee of the Pension Board not calling the Appellant to be present at the hearing of the Appeal, or even considering the various points made in the Appeal, or the Committee’s decision based on their citation of Rules which have no relevance to the issue whatsoever?

So much for ethics. As far as the “fairness” issue, it may be relevant to consider that CAFICS (Canadian Association of Former International Civil Servants) set up a Committee of 7 former Senior officials to study in-depth the proposal for the restitution of full pension. One of its findings was that the lump sum option was grossly unfair and that “they would not recommend to anyone to avail of the option” That is a telling statement on the “fairness” of the scheme and its operation! Again, the unfair discrimination between the beneficiaries, the ones who took the lump sum and those (the majority) who didn’t. Some fairness, that is.

It may not be totally irrelevant to compare the pension schemes with life insurance policies, although they are operated totally differently. There are some similarities in the operation of the lump sum and the insured amount.. Both are governed by actuarial calculations of life expectancy. In the former case, the money is paid up front and recovery made in instalments (deductions), while in the latter, premium is collected towards the payment of a “lump sum” at death. It is significant that a Canadian Court ruled that continued collection of premium, in excess of the total amount insured for, is “unconscionable”. Wouldn’t therefore the continued deduction of benefit beyond the date of full recovery of the lump sum be similarly unfair?

Mr. Cassell says that “by offering ‘B’ to anyone opting for ‘A’ would be unfair to those who chose ‘B’”. ‘A” took the lump sum – not a gift, but a kind of debt – and went on re- paying it (with generous interest) in instalments through deductions. When the “debt” is fully repaid, ‘A’ and ‘B’ are on the same footing, able to enjoy their full pension. Where is the unfairness, unless it is in ‘B’’s mind, or ‘B’ doesn’t want to get down from the manger to enable ‘A’ to enjoy equal rights and benefits.

The argument that those who took the lump sum to make a killing through investments, a red herring, is not borne by facts. The majority of retirees, as everyone knows, did not, repeat not, avail of the lump sum. Were they stupid to forego the wealth from this goldmine? Obviously not, and one has to conclude that there was no incentive opportunity to invest. Also a survey done sometime ago of those who took the lump sum showed that they mostly took the lump sum to meet some pressing needs at the time of their retirement, relocation and life re-adjustment. So, once again Mr. Cassell has got all his facts wrong.

There are many other canards that Mr. Cassell and his likes have let out and all these balloons can be burst with reasonable and logical answers.

I hope Mr. Cassell will do us all a favour by also publishing, in his blog, the various arguments against his pet theories, for all to make their own judgement.

With many thanks for your forbearance,

(Sandy Sundaram)

*********

END

Addendum to Common Cause Appeal to UNAT - Case # 2009-001

2009-10-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

ADDENDUM TO THE UNAT COMMON CAUSE APPEAL SIGNED/SUBMITTED

ON 27 AUGUST 2009 BY M/S SUNDARAM, MUTHUSWAMI & SRINIVASAN

UNAT CASE # 2009-001

****

SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH

SECTION IV. LEGAL BASIS/ARGUMENT , OF THE ORIGINAL COMMON CAUSE APPEAL

Para 29.A – “Noblemaire Principle”

The pay and emoluments as well as service conditions of the serving staff of the UN family are, among other things, governed by the noble Noblemaire Principle, viz., matching or even surpassing the best conditions offered to staff among the civil services of the Governments of the Member States.

29.b Retired staff, as the UN Secretary General, proudly proclaimed thus -----

“TO US YOU ARE FORMER INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANTS ON PAPER ONLY; IN PRACTICE YOU REMAIN VALUED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS FAMILY.”

Further on, he added:

“ACCUMULATED WISDOM, INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF FORMER INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANTS COMPLEMENT DEDICATION OF TODAY'S UNITED NATIONS STAFF.”

and they are, thus the extension of the currently serving staff and hence the Rules and Terms that applied during their tenure of services with the UN, should logically be extended to their period of retirement. In short, the Noblemaire Principle (or any other service conditions) that were applicable before their retirement should also prevail. We don't suddenly get disjointed.

29.c As we all know, some of the National Civil Service Pension Schemes limit the period of commutation to a fixed duration, for those who took the lump sum option, after which their full pension was automatically restored. If the best of the Government Pension Schemes allow for the restitution of the full pension after a period of (actuarially determined) years. these terms should also govern the Rules and Implementation of the UN Pension, according to the coveted Noblemaire Principle. It is not logical or reasonable to argue that UNJSPF is different from national Pension Schemes. While the level or calculation of our pensions may not be the same in every case, the UNMISTAKABLE FACT is that the lump sum practice is identical in all cases. We are here talking only about the lump sum operation and with the application of the Noblemaire Principle, the best terms offered by any of the Governments, should be applied.

29.d Hence, our Appeal includes this additional argument: "Don't discriminate between present and former UN staff but treat both categories the same in respect of policy and implementation, governed by the Noblemaire Principle (or any other Terms and Conditions) applicable."

END OF ADDENDUM

SIGNED: S.P. SUNDARAM (R#28009) ----------------------------------------
(signed by the following signatory as requested by Mr Sundaram who is not in Chennai & unwell)

V.MUTHUSWAMI (R#63374) (Signed)

G.S. SRINIVASAN (R#66715) (Signed)

Chennai, India : 30 September 2009 (Also Notarised & RECD AT UNAT)