UNDT/2015/023, Applicants UNFPA*
Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. UNDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general order, it applies to a group of staff members defined exclusively by their status and category within the Organization at a certain point in time and location. Hence, the Applicants did not contest an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a).
By individually submitted applications, the Applicants contest “the decision of OHRM … [finding] that [as per] the comprehensive salary survey conducted in New Delhi, India, in June 2013, current salaries for locally–recruited staff are above the labour market”, as contained in a UN/OHRM cable of 1 October 2014, which led to the fact that salary scales for staff members on board prior to 1 November 2014 were not reviewed after the survey and that child and language allowances were reviewed downward.
Binding character of UNAT judgments: The Dispute Tribunal shall recognize, respect and abide by the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal.
UNDT Judgment reversed by UNAT Judgment Prasad et al. 2016-UNAT-629 remanding the matter to the Dispute Tribunal with directions to permit the staff members to file their applications.