Classification (post)

UNAT affirmed UNDT’s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, UNAT reversed UNDT’s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. UNAT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. UNAT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct to reject the Applicant’s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. UNAT found no error in UNDT’s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

UNAT held that UNDT’s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. UNAT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration’s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the UNAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something UNAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The UNAT’s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

In accordance with former staff rule 104.12(b)(i) and provisional staff rule 4.13(c), the Applicant cannot claim a right to the renewal of her fixed-term appointment. The Applicant claims that the difficult working relationship she had with her supervisor led the latter, with the objective of getting rid of the former, to seek the reclassification of her post at a higher level. However, the Applicant does not prove that the non-extension of her appointment results solely from the desire of her supervisor to remove her from the service, nor that, consequently, the contested decision appears...

Outcome: Appeal upheld. Decision held to be a breach of staff regulation 2.1 and the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. Respondent ordered to pay compensation of the difference in salary, allowances and other entitlements between the applicant’s current level and the level at which she should have been classified since the date she made her request. Respondent ordered to pay compensation for non-material damage due to frustration and humiliation compounded by delays at six months’ net base salary.

The Secretary-General’s decision to allow the applicants to resubmit their cases to the CAC within 90 days was reasonable and fair. The CAC is the legitimate and appropriate body to hear the applicants’ request for a review of a reclassification decision. In view of the JAB’s report, the lack of information provided during the period in question and the respondent’s silence in explaining the delays in the period from 2000-04, the Tribunal finds that compensation for the excessive delay in responding to the original request for reclassification is warranted, as is compensation for the breach of...