El Shaer commenced employment with the Agency on a fixed-term appointment,
Grade 4, Step 1, as Distribution Supervisor at the Rafah Distribution Centre in the Emergency
Programme, Gaza Field Office (GFO) with effect from 21 February 2009.
3. (...) El Shaer again met with the
H/FHRO to discuss certain issues with respect to his case where he again expressed his
request to be transferred to a post other than the post of Distribution Supervisor at the
Rafah Distribution Centre. (...) Jonathan Porter, Head Field Human Resources Office, in
his letter of 1 March 2018 that you should present yourself to the Logistics Office for
assignment for distribution duties. Nonetheless you consistently refused to carry out
your duties as a Distribution Supervisor.
Language:English
Score: 556789.84
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...at/judgments/2019-UNAT-942.pdf
Data Source: oaj
…
… [The Applicant] claimed that she did not direct the distribution of
damages beans. However, she admitted that she directed that the beans
Case No. (...) When asked about the distribution of the damaged beans, you
claimed that you did not direct distribution of the damaged beans.
(...) In the present case the oil was about to expire, so she told
a colleague “to distribute it fast”.
Key witness statements
32.
Language:English
Score: 522030.2
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2014-021.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The Applicant entered the service of UNOG on 18 February 1974 on a short-term
appointment as a distribution clerk at G-1 level. At the material time and as of the date of
publication of this judgement, he had been working since 2004 in the Distribution Section,
Publications Services, Division of Conference Management, as a Meeting Services Assistant, at G-6
level. (...) On 23 June 2009, the monthly meeting of the Distribution Section was held; it was attended
by 20 staff members, including the Chief of Publications Services, to which the Distribution
Section belongs, the section chief, several unit chiefs within the section, and the Applicant.
4. (...) On 7 September 2009, the Chief of the Distribution Section and four unit chiefs who had
attended the meeting of 23 June 2009 sent to the Director of the Division of Conference
Management, with a copy to the Applicant, among others, a memorandum challenging the latter’s
allegations and complaining of his behaviour during the meeting.

Language:English
Score: 512918.2
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...t/judgments/undt-2011-087e.pdf
Data Source: oaj
Geographical Distribution of UNESCO Staff
Skip to main content
English
Français
Español
Русский
العربية
中文
Português
O’zbek
Enter your keywords
Search
Leave this field blank
You must enable JavaScript to view the search results.
menu login
Member States
Staff
Intranet
UNESCO
Building peace in the minds of men and women
Toggle navigation
In brief
Introducing UNESCO
Mission and Mandate
UNESCO House
Strategic Transformation Portal
Who's Who?
Director-General
Governance
Transparency
Internal Oversight Service
Key Figures & Budget
Funding needs & data
What we do
Expertise
Education
Culture
Natural Sciences
Social and Human Sciences
Communication & Information
Major Initiatives
Revive the Spirit of Mosul
Futures of Education
Fostering freedom of expression
Building knowledge societies
Sustainable Cities
Preventing violent extremism
Our commitment to biodiversity
Advancing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
Specialized Areas
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Global Education Monitoring Report
Global Priorities
Africa
Gender Equality
Where we work
Member States
Field Offices
National Commissions
Ocean & Climate Platform
Networks
International Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable Cities – ICCAR
UNESCO Associated Schools Network
Education for Sustainable Development Network
UNITWIN – UNESCO Chairs
UNEVOC - International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training
Institutes
UIS - UNESCO Institute for Statistics
IIEP - International Institute for Educational Planning
ICTP - International Centre for Theoretical Physics
UIL - Institute for Lifelong Learning
IBE - International Bureau of Education
IICBA - International Institute for Capacity-Building in Africa
IITE - Institute for Information Technologies in Education
IESALC - International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean
MGIEP - Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development
Partners
Introducing Partnerships
Public partners
Business, cities, young people
UNESCO family partners and networks
NGO's and Foundations
Goodwill Ambassadors
Join us
Careers
Procurement
Fellowships
Internship
Resources
For Journalists: Press room
For Delegates: UNESCO.int
Documents & Publications - UNESDOC
Online Bookshop
The UNESCO Courier
Conventions
Official Photos
UNESCO Lists
World Heritage
Intangible Cultural Heritage
Creative Cities
Memory of the World Register
Biosphere Reserves
UNESCO Global Geoparks
UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger
Data and Statistics
UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Observatory of Killed Journalists
World Inequality Database on Education
Transparency portal
Archives
UNESCO Archives
Digital Archives
Library
UNESCO Library
UNESDOC Digital Library
Multimedia collections
Home
Careers
Geographical Distribution of UNESCO Staff
Social Media
Instagram
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
LinkedIn
iTunes
Rss
Respectzone
Geographical Distribution of UNESCO Staff
UNESCO uses a formal geographical distribution mechanism. The current methodology for the calculation of geographical quotas was approved by the General Conference at its 32nd session in October 2003 (32 C/Resolution 71).
Geographical Distribution in 2021
Geographical Distribution as at December 2021
Geographical Distribution as at November 2021
Geographical Distribution as at October 2021
Geographical Distribution as at September 2021
Geographical Distribution as at August 2021
Geographical Distribution as at July 2021
Geographical Distribution as at June 2021
Geographical Distribution as at May 2021
Geographical Distribution as at April 2021
Geographical Distribution as at March 2021
Geographical Distribution as at February 2021
Geographical Distribution as at January 2021
Geographical Distribution in 2020
Geographical Distribution as at December 2020
Geographical Distribution as at November 2020
Geographical Distribution as at October 2020
Geographical Distribution as at September 2020
Geographical Distribution as at August 2020
Geographical Distribution as at July 2020
Geographical Distribution as at June 2020
Geographical Distribution as at May 2020
Geographical Distribution as at April 2020
Geographical Distribution as at March 2020
Geographical Distribution as at February 2020
Geographical Distribution as at January 2020
Geographical Distribution in 2019
Geographical Distribution as at December 2019
Geographical Distribution as at November 2019
Geographical Distribution as at October 2019
Geographical Distribution as at September 2019
Geographical Distribution as at August 2019
Geographical Distribution as at July 2019
Geographical Distribution as at June 2019
Geographical Distribution as at May 2019
Geographical Distribution as at April 2019
Geographical Distribution as at March 2019
Geographical Distribution as at February 2019
Geographical Distribution as at January 2019
Geographical Distribution in 2018
Geographical Distribution as at December 2018
Geographical Distribution as at November 2018
Geographical Distribution as at October 2018
Geographical Distribution as at September 2018
Geographical Distribution as at August 2018
Geographical Distribution as at July 2018
Geographical Distribution as at June 2018
Geographical Distribution as at May 2018
Geographical Distribution as at April 2018
Geographical Distribution as at March 2018
Geographical Distribution as at February 2018
Geographical Distribution as at January 2018
UNESCO applies a zero tolerance policy against all forms of harassment
WWW.UNESCO.ORG
Disclaimer of use
Access to Information Policy
Privacy Policy
UNESCO Name & Logo
FAQ
Environmental and Social Policies
Protection of human rights : Procedure 104
Transparency Portal
Scam alert
Report fraud, abuse, misconduct
© UNESCO 2021
Language:English
Score: 496222.3
-
https://en.unesco.org/careers/geographicaldistribution
Data Source: un
Despite such awareness, far from
taking steps to eliminate or reduce the risks related to the distribution
of damaged food, [she] persisted in [her] course of action.
27. (...) There is no proof that at any time she ordered the distribution of any
damaged or expired goods for consumption or ordered that inappropriate
measures be taken for the distribution of such goods to occur. (...) The Applicant knew that several shipments of beans and oil were not
fit for distribution, yet she attempted to conceal those problems and distribute
them;
d.
Language:English
Score: 490445.1
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2014-025.pdf
Data Source: oaj
UNDT/2013/027
Page 17 of 20
Two staff members received and distributed a relatively small
number of e-mails containing pornography using their official
Lotus Notes e-mail accounts.
(...) Thirty-two staff members received and distributed a relatively
small number of e-mails containing pornography using their
official Lotus Notes e-mail accounts.
(...) Eight staff members received e-mails, distributed and stored a
relatively large number of e-mails containing pornography using
their official Lotus Notes e-mail accounts.
Language:English
Score: 486279.3
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...dt/judgments/undt-2013-027.pdf
Data Source: oaj
The procedure did not comply with the policy objective of ensuring
geographical distribution, since the five candidates who were invited for the
interview were all of Moroccan nationality. (...) Considerations of gender balance or geographical distribution become
relevant only at the stage of the final selection decision; and
e. (...) Whether the Administration ought to have adopted a different procedure to
redress any credible concern regarding the Organisation’s policies on gender
parity and geographical distribution is not an appropriate issue to be explored in
the context of this request for suspension of action under art. 2.2 of the Tribunal’s
Statute.
Language:English
Score: 484240.2
-
www.un.org/en/internalj...s/undt/orders/gva-2017-085.pdf
Data Source: oaj
tentative timetable for THE 17th session of the UPR Working group
(21 OCTOBER – 1 NOVEMBER 2013)
First week
Monday 21 October
Tuesday 22 October
Wednesday 23 October
Thursday 24 October
Friday 25 October
1st week
9:00–12:30
Review of Saudi Arabia
9:00–12:30
Review of China
9:00–12:30
Review of Mexico
9:00–12:30
Review of Jordan
9:00–12:30
Review of Central African Republic
Distribution of report on Saudi Arabia
Distribution of the report on China
14:30–18:00
Review of Senegal
14:30–18:00
Review of Nigeria
14:30–18:00
Review of Mauritius
14:30–18:00
Review of Malaysia
15:00–18:00
Distribution of the reports on Mexico and Mauritius
Distribution of report on Senegal
Distribution of the report on Nigeria
Adoption of the reports on Saudi Arabia, Senegal, China, Nigeria. Mexico and Mauritius
Second week
Monday 28 October
Tuesday 29 October
Wednesday 30 October
Thursday 31 October
Friday 1 November
2nd week
9:00–12:30
Review of Monaco
9:00–12:30
Review of Chad
09:00–12:30
Review of Congo
11:30- 13:00
Adoption of the reports on Jordan, Malaysia and Central African Republic
Distribution of the report on Jordan
Distribution of the report on Central African Republic
Distribution of the report on Monaco
Distribution of the report on Chad
14:30–18:00
Review of Belize
14:30–18:00
Review of Israel
14:30–18:00
Review of Malta
16:30-18:00
Adoption of the reports on Monaco, Belize and Chad
15:00–17:00
Adoption of the report on Israel
Distribution of the report on Malaysia
Distribution of the report on Belize
Distribution of the reports on Congo and Malta
Adoption of the reports on Congo and Malta
Language:English
Score: 483428.56
-
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/de...RBodies/UPR/UPR17Timetable.doc
Data Source: un
Microsoft PowerPoint - C. courseDistributed Generation CSD 15 4
1
Regulation and Distributed Generation
Dr Xavier LEMAIRE Sustainable Energy Regulation Network/REEEP
Outline
Definition History and models Costs and benefits of distributed generation Regulation and distributed generation
2
What is distributed generation?
(...) UK under 50 MW Type of connection – i.e. all generation connected to a distribution network Type of generation – e.g. only renewables, even on a transmission network Proximity to the point of use
For this presentation, DG is defined as renewables connected to distribution networks, often close to the point of use
From centralisation… Most established systems rely on centralised generation from large scale, remote plant Drive towards centralisation from:
Technical developments (transformers, boilers) Economies of scale, scope and system
Centralisation became the norm: Active transmission, passive distribution
Degree of centralisation versus distributed generation varies from country to country
E.g. (...) However, distributed generation with small sources of generation disseminated over a country raises specific issues.
Language:English
Score: 482336.3
-
https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev...d/csd15/lc/reep_regulation.pdf
Data Source: un
DIGITAL TERRESTRIAL TRANSITION AND USE OF DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION METHODS
AT A GLANCE ~ The digital terrestrial transition has significant implications for
community broadcasting. (...) In many cases, distribution is done by an entirely separate business operation from content production (stations).
(...) But very different policy tools are required to achieve this given that spectrum is distributed and used in a very different way. This is complicated – for example involving questions of standard and high definition allocations, differences between radio and television, and whether the primary systems for distribution of signals are terrestrial, cable or satellite – and the precise approach will de- pend on how digital frequencies and distribution rights have been allocated in a particular country.
Language:English
Score: 481997.1
-
https://en.unesco.org/sites/de...olicy_7_digital_transition.pdf
Data Source: un