UNDT/2023/058

UNDT/2023/058, Hoxha

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the equivalent of the loss in contributions to pension.

The Administration violated the Applicant’s right to equal pay for equal work.

The Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the equivalent of the loss in contributions to pension.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the Administration’s failure to re-classify the Budget Assistant post which she encumbered, from FS-4 level to FS-5level, per facsimile from the Field Budget and Finance Division dated 14 November 2018.

Legal Principle(s)

The absence of a response on the part of the Administration to a staff member’s request may, in certain circumstances, constitute a denial of that request. This would constitute an appealable
administrative decision since it may amount to an implied unilateral decision with direct legal consequences.

Classification of posts is subject to management’s discretion, but like any discretion, it may not be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner. There
is no discretion to violate the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The application is 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

Hoxha

Entity

UNIFIL

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2022/045

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi