Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts) and that by failing to do so, his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable because it was premature. As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/013.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant, a staff member of the United Nations Environment Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP), contested the outcome of the 2010 reclassification process of his position of Team Assistant at the G-4 level.
In its Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/013, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that his application was premature and thus not receivable because he had not exhausted the remedy set out in ST/AI/1998/9 by submitting an appeal of the reclassification decision.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not the role of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to assist the parties in their pleadings. Consequently, to be able to submit comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply, a staff member should file a motion for additional pleadings.
An oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not mandatory and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review.
Where statutory provisions exist to provide internal remedies, it is proper that staff members should exhaust those remedies before appealing the contested decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.
The decision to appeal an administrative decision on reclassification is optional. However, should a staff member decide to exercise the right to appeal, the nature of such appeal must be as laid down in Section 6 of ST/AI/1998/9, which outlines a specific procedure for challenging a decision not to reclassify a post at a higher level. Indeed, the use of the words ¡°shall¡± and ¡°must¡±, clearly expressed in Section 6 of ST/AI/1998/9, indicates that this appeal procedure is mandatory.