Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On an appeal by the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the applications were receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction to hearing appeals against administrative decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT defined an administrative decision as a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with the implementation of the Unified Salary Scale, it was not certain whether the Respondents would ever face such negative effects. It follows that the implementation of the Unified Salary Scale is not an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the applications receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly upheld the appeal and vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The four Applicants contested the decisions to reduce their contracted salaries and the manner of the implementation of the Unified Salary Scale. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the contested decisions constituted administrative decisions in terms of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute because the Respondents¡¯ gross and net base salaries were reduced by their loss of the entitlement to be paid at the dependency rate and the conversion of a portion of their salary into a separate allowance, which, unlike the salary, was subject to change at the discretion of the Organisation and thus the decisions had an adverse impact on their terms of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the applications were receivable as they did not seek to review the legality of the General Assembly Resolutions, but rather the legality of the administrative decisions implementing the Resolutions in the Respondents¡¯ individual cases. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the unilateral conversion of a portion of the Applicant¡¯s salaries into a separate allowance violated their acquired right to a certain quantum of salary. With the implementation of the Unified Salary Scale, the Respondents suffered a reduction of their gross salary and increase of their staff assessment resulting in a reduction of their net base salary by about six per cent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Respondents¡¯ salaries were a ¡°fundamental and essential term of employment¡± as they are explicitly set out in their letters of appointment, and therefore an acquired right which could not be unilaterally altered by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that this inviolable right to salary necessarily extends to its quantum. With salaries having increased over time and the letters of appointment explicitly stating that the salaries were subject to increase, the Respondents accrued an inviolable right to be paid the newly determined salaries. On that basis, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that because the additional payment made to the Respondents on account of their dependents was initially embedded in their salaries, the unilateral reduction violated their acquired right to receive the gross and net salaries set out in their letters of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT partially granted the Applications; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the Respondents¡¯ acquired rights had been violated, rescinded the contested decisions, and rejected all other claims.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. Staff members are entitled to receive the benefits in question only when certain conditions are met.