2011-Ģ��ƵAT-177

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

On the issue of receivability, Ģ��ƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ģ��ƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of special compensation for working in hazardous duty stations is based on a general consideration of a category of staff members, in comparison to another category. Ģ��ƵAT noted that different treatment becomes discriminatory when it negatively affects the rights of certain staff members or categories of them, due to unlawful reason; but when the approach is general by categories, there is no discrimination when the difference is motivated in the pursuit of general goals and policies and when it is not designed to treat individuals or categories of the unequally. Ģ��ƵAT stated that the principle of equality meant equal treatment of equals, and also meant unequal treatment of unequals. Ģ��ƵAT found no illegality in the administrative act of not awarding the Appellant hazard pay because it was part of the general treatment of the area staff member of Ģ��ƵRWA, who are not entitled, under their terms of appointment, to that kind of payment, in contrast to international staff members. Ģ��ƵAT clarified that Ģ��ƵRWA area staff members are not part of the Ģ��Ƶ common system of salaries, allowances or other conditions of services. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the entitlement to hazard pay to area staff members depends on the policies, procedures, rules and discretionary �C but non-arbitrary �C distribution of the budget by the Ģ��ƵRWA Administration. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA decision: The Applicant, an area staff member, contested the decision not to pay him to hazard pay, having not received a response to his request for such payment. Endorsing the recommendation of the Area Appeals Board, the Ģ��ƵRWA Commissioner-General dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

Not taking a decision is also a decision; it is an implied decision. Equal pay for equal work does not prevent the legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. The principle of equality means equal treatment of equals; it also means unequal treatment of unequal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Tabari

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement