Nathalie Tschyrkow,
United Nations Women's Guild, Geneva
The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board held its 50th session in Geneva from 5 to 14 July 2000, under the chairmanship of former FICSA President Walter P. Scherzer. FICSA would like to extend its congratulations to Walter on his election and, above all, for his outstanding performance during the session! A detailed account of the results of the session has been published in FICSA Update No. 19 |
In July 2000, the UNJSPB discussed, among other issues, entitlements to survivor's benefit for spouses and former spouses not covered by article 35bis of the Fund's Regulations and further modification of article 45 dealing with financial obligations of pensioners. Lately, after 20 years of discussions, some improvements have been made in connection with the above matters. However, important issues remain to be positively addressed as a matter of urgency.
As regards the situation of divorced surviving spouses of participants who retired before 1 April 1999 and are not covered by article 35bis, the Board decided to recommend to the General Assembly the adoption of a sub-paragraph (e). It would entitle, as from 1 April 1999, the divorced spouse of a former participant who separated before 1 April 1999, and met all other eligibility conditions in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of article 35bis, to a benefit equal to twice the minimum survivor's benefit under article 34 (c). This seems to be insufficient and should be set at three times the minimum ($10,935), as proposed by FAFICS and by the UNWG-Geneva; four times if the marriage lasted at least 25 years.
One should note that the above recommendation, if adopted by the General Assembly, would be adequate only if the participant or former participant died before entry into force of the new provision and the surviving spouse's benefit has already been granted, since it is not possible to reduce its amount in order to give a part thereof to a former spouse. In such a case the divorced spouse's benefit could only be granted as an additional benefit. The same reasoning applies if there is no surviving spouse.
However, if the participant or former participant is still alive at the time of entry into force of the new provision, there is no acquired or vested right of the spouse to any particular amount of the benefit. Such a right only becomes unconditional upon the death of the participant or former participant. There should therefore be no obstacle to a division of the benefit between the surviving spouse and the divorced spouse or spouses, in accordance with the provisions of article 35bis. This solution should be included in the proposed sub-paragraph (e) as it will repair, at least for the future, and at no extra cost to the Pension Fund, the injustice suffered by former spouses over many years.
Under the new article 35bis - divorced surviving spouse's benefit - the eligibility criteria appear to be arbitrary and unscrupulously in favour of the new younger spouses, at the expense of the older divorced ones who accompanied their spouses (the international civil servants) abroad over long periods of time, raised their children, supported their career, etc. They thus "earned" at least an entitlement to a decent survivor's benefit. Therefore, one should strongly support the following FAFICS proposals for change or elimination:
It is noted with satisfaction that the Board recommended to the General Assembly the modification of Article 45 concerning "payment facility", by making family support payments direct to the spouse or former spouse pursuant to a final court order, without a request to that effect from the participant concerned. The Board thus finally answered General Assembly resolution 37/131 of 1982, which noted "the absence of effective measures for dealing with the financial obligations of a pensioner to his/her spouse or former spouse which, in some cases might give rise to serious hardship" and requested the Board "to pursue the search for such measures ... at no additional cost to the Pension Fund."
According to UNAIDS, in early 2000 there were an estimated 3000 United Nations staff and dependents living with HIV/AIDS. In the last four years, developments in anti-retroviral drug therapies have made HIV infection a chronic, but treatable condition for most people with HIV infection in developed countries. However, the majority of UN staff and dependants with HIV infection live in countries where access to appropriate medical treatment and care is often non-existent, or limited and expensive. In addition, staff who fear discrimination from management or colleagues may choose not to access existing medical treatment and other support, thus compounding the impact of HIV infection and AIDS. |
||
|
Lusaka (Zambia) and Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) have been identified as sites for pilot projects to provide a comprehensive package of medical treatment and counseling for staff and dependants with HIV infection. In 1999, a UNAIDS consultant visited both sites and made recommendations on how to move the projects ahead. In particular, negotiations with Glaxo-Wellcome, a major supplier of anti-retroviral therapies, has resulted in substantial reductions in the list prices of these drugs. Fear of stigma and discrimination remain a major obstacle. In December 1999 it was reported that although support was available to UN staff living with HIV in Lusaka, no staff member had yet sought assistance. |
|
In May 2000, David Patterson visited UN system staff in Dakar (Senegal) on behalf of FICSA to ascertain and report on the current state of HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support for UN system staff and dependants in Senegal. Ms. Aby Dramé, President of the Federation of UN Staff Associations and Unions in Senegal (FASPINUS), arranged the meetings with staff and officials of WHO and UNDP.
Senegal is less severely affected than many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, yet both prevention of HIV infection, and care for staff living with HIV/AIDS, is of ongoing concern. An interagency workshop on HIV/AIDS in the UN workplace was held in December 1999.
Staff interviewed had different
In Resolution A/55/2 the heads of State and Government, have resolved to have, by 2015, halted, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS. WHO says: "Well-targeted, low-cost prevention and care strategies exist and are effective." FICSA urges you to care for your and your family's health and life. |
There is no UN medical service in Senegal. Medical care is provided by the private/government sector. A drug access initiative is supported by the Senegalese government. In April, some 70 persons were receiving anti-retroviral treatment, according to UNAIDS.
There is no room for complacency in the matter of HIV/AIDS in the UN workplace, even in a relatively low prevalence country such as Senegal. UN staff are at risk for a number of reasons due to the nature of their work, including duty travel and the risk of infection following a transfusion from an unsecured blood supply; sexual assault; and complacency regarding safer sex.
Dr. Justine Agnes-Soudahoro (WHO/AFRO/RPA) reported that the situation was indeed difficult in other duty stations. She had been contacted by UN staff with HIV infection seeking advice and assistance with treatment options.
Although PEP (post exposure prevention) kits have been received in Dakar, they are only available for accidental exposure, and are no guarantee against infection. Following the patterns in the general population, most UN staff will be infected through consensual sexual relations with either a casual or regular partner. Therefore, HIV prevention education must be the highest priority.
Only a small number of booklets 'AIDS and HIV Infection: Information for United Nations Employees and their Families' in French have been received by the UNAIDS Focal Point, and have not yet been distributed.
| The booklet 'AIDS and HIV Infection: Information for United Nations Employees and their Families' is now available electronically at: |
|---|
|
The need for continuing staff education is illustrated by the case of FAO. Although five staff from FAO attended the WHO workshop in December 1999, three of these five have since left the organization.
It was agreed to convene a meeting of medical practitioners providing services to the UN staff and dependants in Senegal for the purpose of discussing the provision and use of the PEP kits. This meeting would be used to raise broader issues regarding HIV infection in the UN workplace, and a smaller group of medical practitioners interested to work further on the issue would be identified.
Bernard Miller
You leave Country X to take a job with a widely respected International Organisation, headquartered in a country that prides itself on human rights leadership. You have worked for many such bodies around the world.
Within days you feel ill when at work, but recover shortly after leaving. Each day recovery takes longer and becomes less thorough. After just a few months you no longer recover. Doctors diagnose sick-building syndrome and chemical hypersensitivity. You learn other staff have been suffering for over two decades. Some collapsed while working. Many left their jobs. Others died. Experienced in building design and services you help to survey the building, devise a plan for improving the building, and improving the health environment. Some changes are made but they don't help you.
Four years later, you are so ill you can't continue working. The head of The Organisation fires you on health grounds. That would normally be against the national laws. In breach of its own rules on health-based dismissals, against national law, and international conventions, The Organisation denies you disability benefit or compensation, cancels your entitlement to healthcare, stops your additional health insurance, and informs the government that you are no longer employed and therefore no longer eligible to stay in the country.
No job, income, healthcare, or right to stay. No place to return home.
Then you discover The Organisation, building owner, and government studied the building, measured toxic chemicals in the air and dust, have reports and health warnings but didn't tell staff.
The government even passed special laws to protect this important Organisation. You can't sue.
Extensive tests confirm illness due to chemical exposures. Your health deteriorates. Treatment is available only at specialised centres and at high cost. You lose your home.
You have a strong legal case against the government and building-owner. They are suing each other. Everyone is equal before the law. Except you!
The government will violate its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms and fight as far as its Supreme Court to deny you your right to access to its law. Who do you turn to?
The UN? Your own government? The International Court of Justice?
The Organisation is part of the UN. The government of Country X does not intervene in such cases. The Organisation does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
This is my story - year ten. The government's third appeal went to the Supreme Court of Country X in August.