In Corrupt UN of Guterres In UNESCO Under “Reform” €20M Salary Risk Looms at ILOAT

In Corrupt UN of Guterres In UNESCO Under “Reform” €20M Salary Risk Looms at ILOAT By Matthew Russell Lee & sources, Exclusive UN GATE, Feb 18 – UNESCO, like the whole UN system under Antonio Guterres, has been falling apart in corruption and fraud. The UNESCO corruption series now spans 142 stories. Audrey Azoulay stepped down in November, but three months later the same complacent and high-handed practices that defined her tenure seem to persist — with little visible corrective action from the new Director-General, El-Enany of Egypt. As UNESCO now speaks of renewal and administrative reform, a pending case before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), AT 5-6007, could expose the agency to more than €20 million in salary liabilities — over how it applied its own written rule.  The case began in 2020 as a single complaint consolidating the dispute, later joined by eight voluntary interveners. Any ruling for the main plaintiff would extend to all nine. They are represented by London barrister and U.S. attorney Alexandre Phillip Haines of 4 Pump Court, a specialist in the law of international organizations. At issue is UNESCO Staff Rule 103.4(a), which provides for annual within-grade salary increments for all staff members. The claim alleges that, for 25 years, UNESCO instead applied biennial increments to General Service staff based in Italy — while Professional and higher-category staff continued to receive annual increments — generating salary arrears plus legal interest. On the merits, UNESCO’s Administration argues that the biennial practice derives from a footnote in an Excel spreadsheet (!?) reflecting recommendations from a prior International Civil Service Commission Rome survey. However, ILOAT precedents are clear: the ICSC issues recommendations, not binding determinations, and any deviation from a Staff Rule requires formal adoption by the organization’s governing bodies. No such statutory derogation from Rule 103.4(a) for Italy appears to exist. The amount currently claimed is €1,767,497 (interest calculated to July 1, 2024). With interest accrued to March 2026, the figure exceeds €2 million. But that may be only the tip of the iceberg. More than 150 current or former staff members of ICTP — a Category I Institute in Trieste — and the UNESCO Venice Field Office could bring follow-on claims if the Tribunal confirms that the written Staff Rule prevails. Internal estimates place potential exposure near €20 million. Repeated attempts to explore out-of-court amicable settlement were reportedly declined by UNESCO’s Office of Legal Affairs under Santiago Villalpando — previously reported on by Inner City Press here. At the 222nd session of the Executive Board, Villalpando publicly stated that whenever litigation risk exists, the Administration urges amicable settlement and that it is often staff who resist. In this case the record points in the opposite direction.  The current administration under Director-General El-Enany has been informed of the litigation risk, yet no settlement discussions have taken place. UNESCO’s only remaining defense rests on a technicality known as admissibility “ratione temporis”. But if it fails, the consequences could be systemic: liability would not stop at the nine current claimants but could extend to all similarly situated staff. Critics say the Administration’s strategy looks less like risk management and more like trying to plug a widening dam with a toothpick. Which raises the governance question: why is UNESCO’s new leadership repeating the same pattern, seemingly ignoring the risk? Is it overwhelmed by inherited dysfunction from Azoulay’s tenure — or is it calculating that, if the judgment goes against the Organization, the political cost can simply be shifted to the previous administration? For an agency funded by Member States, this is not an abstract legal debate. It is a risk management decision — with taxpayers’ money at stake. This is where UNESCO stands today. We will have more on that. Watch this site. *** Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Past (and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA For now: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540  Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?) Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for