UNDT/2023/069

UNDT/2023/069, NAQUIB

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Regarding the ex-gratia claim, the Tribunal observed that the evidence of the fact that the Applicant was carrying out the functions of a P-4 post could be noted from the fact that the functions which the P-4 currently is performing are the same as those which the Applicant was performing before she was reassigned in 2021. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that the Administration violated the Applicant’s right to equal pay for equal work. The Applicant had the right to be compensated for her functions at the proper level, and therefore, she had the right to retroactive payment of salary lost because of the delayed reclassification.

In relation to SPA, the Tribunal held that the Applicant’s allegations on this point were not demonstrated at all in the proceedings.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to deny her an ex-gratia payment for the period October 2015 to February 2020 and SPA for the period February 2020 to April 2021 for carrying out higher level functions.

Legal Principle(s)

The conditions for Special post allowance (“SPA”) are laid down in ST/AI/1999/17 ((Special post allowance). SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that staff members have been assigned to and have discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher-level.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Administration was ordered pay to the Applicant an ex-gratia payment from November 2015 to January 2020, plus monetary interest at a rate equal to the rate of inflation for the same period in the country of service. The compensation should bear interest at the United States of America prime rate with effect from the date the Judgment became executable until payment of said compensation. An additional five per cent should be applied at the United States of America prime rate 60 days from the date the Judgment became executable.

The claim for the SPA was dismissed.

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

NAQUIB

Entity

UN-Habitat

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2022/062

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi