2025-UNAT-1545, Afaf Khaled Abu Shakra et. al.
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had correctly assessed the Agency’s application of the experience level requirements applicable to the Appellants. Specifically, regarding the teachers contesting their classification at Grade 9, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT’s review of the Area Staff Post Description, which required five years of teaching experience at Grade 9 for classification at Grade 10. As the Appellants classified at Grade 9 did not meet this requirement, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had correctly concluded that they were appropriately classified at Grade 9.
The UNAT further held that the UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the contested decision did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work, as that principle does not preclude differential treatment in hiring based on differences in training and experience.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2023/052.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
UNRWA DT: Ninety-eight staff members with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) contested the decisions of the Agency not to grant them the appropriate grade levels for their initial fixed-term appointments.
In its Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2023/052, the UNRWA DT dismissed the staff members’ applications, concluding that while their applications were receivable, the contested decisions were lawful.
The staff members appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Appellate proceedings under the United Nations internal justice system are of a corrective nature and are not designed to allow dissatisfied parties to relitigate issues presented to and decided by the first instance Tribunal. Accordingly, an appellant bears the burden on appeal to establish a sound basis for overruling the decision under review.
The UNRWA Dispute Tribunal’s review of the Agency’s action is conducted in a judicial capacity. As such, its role is not to make the operational decision as to how a program is carried out. Rather, the UNRWA DT sits in review of such decisions and determines, based on an adversarial proceeding and record, whether the Agency’s administrative discretionary actions were legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not prohibit differential treatment based on lawful and convincing reasons.