2016-Ģ��ƵAT-622

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT affirmed Ģ��ƵDT��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, Ģ��ƵAT reversed Ģ��ƵDT��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 instructions. Ģ��ƵAT held that the majority of the applicants had already retired so a remand could not offer an effective remedy. Instead, Ģ��ƵAT awarded each appellant compensation equivalent to three years�� net base salary. In light of the particularly egregious circumstances of the case and the accumulation of aggravating factors, Ģ��ƵAT held that the increased award, exceptionally exceeding the equivalent of two years�� net base salary pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of Ģ��ƵAT��s Statute, was justified.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A group of staff members claimed that the reorganization of their section had led to an increase in their functions and responsibilities, without commensurate reclassification of their posts. They filed an application with Ģ��ƵDT contesting the post reclassification decisions made by the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) which had not resulted in the reclassification of their posts. Ģ��ƵDT rescinded ASG/OHRM��s decision and remanded the case to the Administration for classification decisions.

Legal Principle(s)

Compensation for harm may exceed two years�� net base salary in exceptional cases, such as particularly egregious circumstances of a case and aggravating factors. Staff members have the right to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially.

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

Aly et al.

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement