2017-Ģ��ƵAT-758

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT 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. Ģ��ƵAT found no error in Ģ��ƵDT��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 benefits. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no merit in the claim that she had been de facto demoted. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant failed to point to any error, in law or in fact, which would entitle it to reverse the Ģ��ƵDT judgment. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged a reclassification/renumbering of posts under the new Global Classification Standard (GCS) for General Services (GS) posts, which she considered resulted in a de facto demotion. Following a previous appeal to Ģ��ƵAT in which the case was remanded back to Ģ��ƵDT, Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application, concluding that the realignment exercise had a legitimate organizational objective and was not a classification exercise; and the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had a detrimental impact on her salary or pension benefits.

Legal Principle(s)

The Secretary-General is duty-bound to implement decisions of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) and such decisions are of a general application and are therefore not, in general, reviewable.

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

Pedicelli

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement