The UN pension fund management and pension board have been trying for years to prevent fund staff from running for election to the staff pension committee and pension board.
Now with the ASG for Human Resources also Board Chair and the SG’s representative on the Board, they seem to think it's a "perfect storm" for achieving their goal.
There’s nothing principled about their attempts, which so far have been unsuccessful.
They dislike the fact that two members of the UN participant representatives to the board, who are Fund staff, because of their insider knowledge of fund operations, have, along with other members of the group, been successful in blowing the whistle on mismanagement and irregularities in the Fund and triggering General Assembly reforms. https://www.passblue.com/2020/12/23/the-un-pension-funds-latest-flareups-and-hazards-to-whistleblowers/
Two of the Participants’ Representatives on the Board, who represent 85,000 staff in the UN common system, who are also staff of the Fund, have won three cases at the UN Appeals Tribunal:
https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2017-UNAT-801.pdf
https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2017-UNAT-807.pdf
https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2019-UNAT-908.pdf
Each of these rulings was made after the Board in July 2017 proposed an unlawful amendment to its rules of procedure, and published it in the 2017 Board report dated 8 September 2017. https://undocs.org/A/72/383
The new rule (C1) states, in effect, that staff of the Fund Secretariat and Staff Pension Committees are ineligible to be elected or appointed to represent constituents or serve on the Board.
The then CEO of the fund, as respondent, submitted the amendment to the UNAT, which opined in paragraphs 27 and 31 of its rulings that “there was no law which precluded ….. elect[ion] to the UNSPC” when the appellants decided to become candidates.
There is still no law that excludes pension fund staff and pension committee staff in agencies from running for election.
The rules of procedure of the Board are not the law.
Article 6 of the fund’s rules and regulations is the law, and it remains as intact as it was in 2017.
It states, inter alia, that eligible candidates “shall be participants in the Fund and on the staff of the United Nations, elected by the participants in service in the United Nations by secret ballot.”
In fact, rule C.1 of the board’s rules of procedure is unlawful precisely because it does not conform to Article 6.
In 2018, based on advice from the UN Office of Legal Affairs, the Board attempted to cover its tracks and proposed an amendment to Article 6 and even to remove the jurisdiction of the UNAT by amending Article 48.
The General Assembly in its resolution 73/274 in paragraph 20 did NOT approve the change to Article 6 (or 48) .
In paragraph 21 the General Assembly recalled that it “has sole and ultimate authority to approve amendments to the Regulations governing the Fund“ and in response to a request to allow the Board to “adopt its own rules of procedure” the General Assembly changed the Board’s proposal and approved a change that read - “subject to these regulations the Board could adopt it own rules….”
This confirmed that any new rules of procedure must be compliant with the laws (Articles) and cannot circumvent the GA approved Articles.
Rejected again and again
In resolution 74/263 2019 the General Assembly deferred the amendment of Article 6 (and 48)
In resolution 75/246 2020 the General Assembly still did not amend these articles, recognizing that the proposals would have a negative impact on the rights of participants and even violate the UN Charter and remained unconvinced by the Boards proposals and justifications.
Aim to confuse
Even though rule C.1 is unlawful, a point made clear by the GA decisions not to amend Article 6, the new rule of procedure remains in the book for the sole purpose of confusing readers such as polling officers and an arbitration committee that might have to make a decision concerning this challenge in the 2021 election of Participants’ Representatives.
Something nefarious at play
As the UNAT opined, this was not the first time that the matter had arisen, as the Pension Fund had challenged the candidacy of a staff member in 1989. The staff member ran for office but did not win in the election. There was no attempt then to change the regulations or rules to exclude pension fund staff.
Again in 2012 a staff member in the Pension Fund’s Investments Division had run for election to the UNSPC. There was again no challenge to this candidacy, or any attempt to change the rules.
In 2017 when the two above-mentioned tpension fund staff decided to be candidates, polling officers - recognizing that the regulations - Article 6 - did not exclude any active participant from UNSPC membership rejected the challenge of the then Legal Officer of the Fund.
At that time both Fund staff candidates, one from Senegal, the other from Guyana, were successful. The Board left no stone unturned in various attempt to disenfranchise them, including unlawfully excluding them from the 2017 meeting, muting their microphones and requesting them to recuse themselves from meetings where there was no conflict of interest.
And still they persist.
They must be stopped in their attempts to circumvent Article 6. The matter is one of principle, transparency, oversight, equal treatment of all participants for the benefit of all shareholders and beneficiaries of the Fund.
No comments:
Post a Comment