2016-Ģ��ƵAT-657

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no statutory provision or other law which gives Ģ��ƵDT jurisdiction to entertain an application by a staff representative on behalf of staff members. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ģ��ƵDT in arriving at its judgment that the application was not receivable. Ģ��ƵAT held however that Appellant was under the impression that he could present an effective challenge and had not manifestly abused the proceedings by merely proceeding with his application. Ģ��ƵAT upheld the appeal in part to vacate the order of costs against the staff member and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment on receivability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested what he described as the ��implementation�� of a job opening for a P-5 post. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application as not receivable ratione personae since the Applicant challenged the application of a policy that had no direct legal consequences affecting him. Ģ��ƵDT ordered costs against the Applicant for having manifestly abused the proceedings ��by his persistence in advancing a legally unsustainable contention, despite guidance offered at the case management discussion (CMD) on the applicable legal principles��.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff representative acting on behalf of staff members does not have standing to bring an application before Ģ��ƵDT. The Ģ��ƵDT Statute is quite clear that the right to challenge an administrative decision before Ģ��ƵDT is an individual right. There is no statutory provision or other law which gives Ģ��ƵDT jurisdiction to entertain an application by a staff representative on behalf of staff members. The only recognition given to a staff association in the Ģ��ƵDT Statute is contained in Article 2. 3, which provides that ��the Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to permit or deny leave to an application to file a friend-of-the-court brief by a staff association��.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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

Faye

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement