2015-Ģ��ƵAT-563

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ģ��ƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who was mandated to implement the change by the promulgation of the necessary staff rules and administrative issuances. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not have the competence to examine administrative and budgetary decisions taken by the General Assembly, including on the entitlements to be accorded to different categories of staff members. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in law or fail to exercise its jurisdiction in deeming the Appellant��s challenge to the General Assembly resolutions not receivable. On the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT erred by not finding that his temporary appointment was unlawful because the nature of a temporary appointment was not respected, Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s complaint related to the Administration��s application of the policy and, as such, fell within the jurisdiction of the Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the complaint made by the Appellant required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious and it would remand this discrete issue back to Ģ��ƵDT. On the Appellant��s claim that Ģ��ƵDT committed an error of procedure in failing to address whether his appointment should have been converted to a fixed-term contract, Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no evidence that Ģ��ƵDT considered this complaint and thus erred in failing to do so and that it would remand this discrete issue back to Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��s rejection of the Appellant��s claim that the rules governing entitlements for temporary staff member were unlawful and remanded the following issues to Ģ��ƵDT for consideration: (i) whether the Appellant��s temporary appointment was unlawful because ST/AI/2010/Rev. 1 was not properly applied; and (ii) whether his temporary appointment should have been converted to a fixed-term appointment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, holding a temporary appointment, submitted four separate applications contesting the Administration��s decision that he was not entitled to the accrual of annual leave at the rate of two and a half days per month and the same relocation and assignment grants as staff members on fixed-term appointments. Ģ��ƵDT found the applications were not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

Administrative decisions are characterised by the fact that they are taken by the Administration, they are unilateral and of individual application, and they carry direct legal consequences.

Outcome

Appeal granted in part

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

Reid

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal