Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of ¡°relevant work experience¡± in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications. By doing so, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a policy decision which is solely within the purview of the Administration. Thus, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Dispute Tribunal had improperly usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion and replaced it with its own.
Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had considered Mr. Suarez-Liste¡¯s Ph.D. in Economics and correctly applied the Grading Guidelines for language staff which did not contemplate additional steps-in-grade for a Ph.D. The evidence was that the Administration applied the Grading Guidelines for language staff in the exercise of its discretion in a manner that was consistent with its terms and with past practice. There have been no entry level language staff that have received P-3, step VIII.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/077, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the Administration¡¯s decision to assign the staff member the grade of P-3, Step II, on his initial appointment as a Translator with the Organization. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered that the Administration place the staff member at the grade of P-3, step VIII, based on the fact that the staff member had a PhD, which could be considered relevant work experience. The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.
Legal Principle(s)
In reviewing the validity of the Administration¡¯s exercise of discretion in administrative matters, the Dispute Tribunal determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered, and whether the decision is absurd or perverse. It is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider the ¡°correctness¡± of the choice made by the Administration nor to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration.