2016-UNAT-631 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2016-UNAT-631, Thomas et al.

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. UNAT found that UNDT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. UNAT held that UNDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. UNAT held that UNDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. UNAT reversed the UNDT judgment and remanded the matter to UNDT with directions to permit the Appellants to file their applications.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicants filed a request for an extension of time to file their applications against the decision of the Office of Human Resources Management/International Civil Service Commission, which found according to a comprehensive salary survey conducted in New Delhi, India, that the current salaries for locally recruited staff were above the labour market. UNDT recalled UNAT’s judgment in Tintukasiri et. al. (judgment No. 2015-UNAT-526) and reiterated that “the decision to freeze the existing salary scales … did not constitute an administrative decision for the purpose of art. 2. 1(a) of its Statute. ” UNDT decided by way of summary judgment that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae.

Legal Principle(s)

A request for an extension of time to file an application is not equivalent to an actual application and shall not be treated as such. The requests for an extension of time were made so that the staff members could obtain the information needed to prepare an application. In other words, the staff members were not ready to file an application without first obtaining additional information needed to support said application. In such circumstances, however, UNDT is not necessarily required to grant the staff members’ requests for an extension of time but shall not sua sponte convert such requests to applications.

Outcome

Appeal granted

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Thomas et al.

Entity

UNICEF