regard to ST/AI/281. It would be for consideration whether, if the Respondent's refusal to grant assistance in the present case had been faulted by procedural or other defects (which in the Tribunal's view it was not) the Applicant would have been entitled to compensation on that account. But no such issue is presented in this case. IV.The Applicant bases his claim not on a failure to follow the prescribed procedure in ST/AI/281, but on the alleged prejudice against him on the part of one of the three members of the Advisory Panel which advised the Respondent to refuse to grant assistance. That Panel, under paragraph 10 of ST/AI/281, was appointed by the Secretary-General and was composed of the Director of the Division of Personnel Administration, OPS, as Chairman, and two other members, one of them appointed on the recommendation of the Staff Committee. The member appointed on the recommendation of the Staff Committee was in fact its President who, when the pressure of other business so required, substituted the First Vice-President of the Staff Committee. In consequence, the membership of the Panel changed from time to time, but the third member was always an elected official of the Staff Committee. V.The Respondent does not deny that the Applicant was disliked by the Staff Committee, as evidenced by the reference to "Doddism" in its publication "U.N. Report", February 1986, and other adverse observations. Perhaps this may have affected one of the three Panel-members (the member appointed on the recommendation of the Staff Committee), but there is no evidence that it affected the other two. The Panel unanimously advised that it "considered issues to be discussed at the Conference not specific to the work of the- 7 - Classification Section", a conclusion which could, in the Tribunal's
**Analysis**
The text appears to be related to the internal workings of the United Nations, specifically the Staff Union (Staff Committee) and the Advisory Panel. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a legal or administrative context. The discussion revolves around the alleged prejudice against the Applicant, a UN staff member, and the Panel's decision to refuse assistance. This suggests that the text is related to employment or labor issues within the UN.

**Category**
Employment