Classification (post)

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The UNAT noted that the Agency’s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members’ posts. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission’s “Master Standard for Classification”. The UNAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the UNRWA DT’s determinations.

The UNAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The UNAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The UNAT noted that the UNRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The UNAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The UNAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the UNRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...

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...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...

The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The UNAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The UNAT found that the UNWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The UNAT concluded that the UNRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The UNAT also held that the UNDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General’s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration’s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...