����AV

Announcement of NYGSCAC composition The Tribunal notes that ST/IC/2011/17 (Membership of the New York General Service Classification Appeals Committee) was issued by the ASG/OHRM on 7 June 2011, on the same day that the NYGSCAC issued its report.The Applicants’ right to be informed of the composition of the NYGSCAC in a timely manner was not respected. Moreover, the NYGSCAC, as an appellate body, must have impartial members to ensure the fairness of the review, and the appellants must have the possibility to request the replacement of any member, including the chairperson, if any of them are...

Receivability: The Tribunal considered that the contested decision was alleged to be in non-compliance with the Applicant’s terms of appointment and produced direct legal consequences adversely affecting the Applicants’ rights. The Tribunal found that the application was receivable.Whether there were procedural errors which breached the Applicant’s rights following the classification of the post at the G-5 level and, if there were, what consequences flowed from those procedural errors The Tribunal found that the Administration failed to comply with ST/AI/1998/9 in that it did not provide a...

Findings of fact by the Appeals Tribunal – As a matter of general principle, it is not permissible for the Tribunal to question a finding of fact or a ruling on the law as set down by the Appeals Tribunal. Receivability – A staff member who raises a credible claim which needs to be tested ought not to be shut out at a preliminary stage. There is a difference between a claim that is clearly not receivable because it does not challenge an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1 and a claim which on the face of it raises an apparently credible challenge that a decision of general...

The Administration decided to re-examine an earlier decision not to review the two job descriptions. The Applicant was notified that after multiple reviews it was decided that the two job descriptions would not be revised. The Applicant received notification of this final and unambiguous decision at a moment, which puts her request for management evaluation well within the deadline. The application is deemed receivable.

The Applicant had unusually received SPA for the more than the four-year period she performed functions at a higher level (February 2012 – June 2016). The post she encumbered was reclassified upwards to the FS-6 level in 2012, not 2006. The Tribunal refused her claim that she was performing higher-level functions between 2006 and 2012 when those functions were not recognized through an upward reclassification as higher-level functions. Additionally, under section 6.2(c) of ST/AI/2003/3, in respect of posts reclassified upwards at established missions, an SPA may not become effective before the...

UNDT held that a plain reading of staff regulation 2.1 makes it clear that the Administration is obliged to provide a classification not only for the staff members but also for the posts that they are encumbering. UNDT held that nowhere in Personnel Directive/1/94 it is as much as contemplated that a staff member at the GS-level, even on a short-term temporary appointment as the Applicant, could be hired against an unclassified post. UNDT held that the administrative decision under review is clearly the decision by which the Applicant was recruited against an unclassified post when he was...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-UNAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...