2024-UNAT-1422

2024-UNAT-1422, John Njuguna Bernard

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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 Judgment on receivability.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/014.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Appellant, a staff member of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), contested the outcome of the 2010 reclassification process of his position of Computer Information Systems Assistant at the G-6 level.

In its Judgment No. UNDT/2023/014, the UNDT 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)

Following the principle of plain interpretation, where there is no ambiguity, codified law is interpreted according to the letter of the law.

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 UNDT.

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.  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.  A request for management evaluation is not an internal mechanism equivalent to the one provided in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9, which outline a specific procedure for challenging a decision not to reclassify a post at a higher level.

Once the threshold issue of non-receivability is successfully raised and upheld, the substantive matter can no longer be entertained on the merits of the case.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
John Njuguna Bernard
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type