Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s...

The UNAT noted that the reclassification request was made by UNIFIL and not by the staff member.

The UNAT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the UNDT by the staff member.  Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment.  The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis.  It is a...

The UNAT held that the UNDT 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 UNAT also held that the UNDT 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 UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration’s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The UNAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites.  Instead, he 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).  As the staff member’s application was not receivable, the UNAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case.  The UNAT denied the staff member’s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing.  It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex. 

The UNAT found that the Appellant’s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable.  The UNAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Appeals of classification decisions are governed by ST/AI/1998/9 and for such matters there is a separate internal process.

Once approved by the General Assembly, the decision to downgrade a post is placed outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. There can be no issue of restoring this position and the Applicant as its incumbent. The only question that could be entertained by the Tribunal is whether, in proposing the budget, the administration acted lawfully, or, as it is alleged, engaged in a conspiracy against the Applicant to mislead the General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General’s recommendation to downgrade one of the P-4 posts was lawful.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the downgrading of...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. UNAT held that UNDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes’ appeal against the reclassification decision. UNAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgment.