Administrative tribunals

(1)     The draft statute and the attitude of the agencies towards use of the UN Administrative Tribunal were discussed at the 6th and 11th sessions (July 1949 and 1951: CC/A.6/Rev.1, CC/A.11/SR.4/Add.1, CO-ORDINATION-PREP/133, CO-ORDINATION/R.93). There is a separate, and older, ILO Tribunal, which is used (except for pension matters) by ILO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, ITU, WMO, UPU, WIPO, IFAD, GATT and IAEA, as well as by CERN and several other non-UN organizations.

Management - staff relations

(1)     At the 13th session (September 1952: CO-ORDINATION/R.132, Section B.1) FICSA requested that it be consulted on matters affecting conditions of employment of international staff. The Committee refused the request, feeling that it would not be appropriate to accord right of participation or observer status to the Federation. The majority of the Committee, however, felt that, subject to a decision by the Committee in each individual case, the Federation should be allowed to submit written statements or be granted a hearing before it.

Personnel statistics

(1)     By correspondence and through consultations held at the time of the 22nd session of ICSAB (in 1974), CCAQ agreed to the establishment in the International Computing Centre (ICC) of a CCAQ personnel data file comprising nineteen items of basic information regarding each staff member on the rolls as at 31 December of each year. The data would be supplied by each organization either in the form of a magnetic tape extract of the organization's own EDP personnel file or by code sheets for organizations not having computerized records.

Staff regulations - common pattern

(1)     At its 3rd and 4th sessions (October 1948 and January 1949: CO-ORDINATION-PREP/87 and 98) CCAQ discussed certain questions affecting the development of a common pattern of staff regulations. At the 9th session (July 1950: CC/A.9/CO-ORDINATION/R.83) it discussed draft common staff regulations. Subject to some changes, the Committee agreed to submit this to ACC, it being understood that the agreement did not affect the constitutional position relating to the competence of each agency to approve and amend its own staff regulations.