2018-UNAT-857, Clemente
UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the AJAB erred in any way in finding that the ICAO Secretary-General’s granting of a personal promotion from the G-8 to G-9 level was in accordance with the personal promotions policy. UNAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in the AJAB’s decisions that she was not eligible to receive a second personal promotion to the P-2 level, and that, in any event, she had no right to such promotion. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error, whether of fact, law, or procedure, in the findings of AJAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ICAO Secretary-General’s decision to accept AJAB’s unanimous recommendation.
The Applicant requested a review of a personal promotion decision by the ICAO Secretary-General, which also entailed the reclassification of her post. The Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB) found that the Applicant failed to timely request review of the Secretary-General’s decision on the proper classification of her post. AJAB found that a personal promotion from G-8 to G-9 was consistent with ICAO’s personal promotion policy. AJAB found that the Applicant was neither eligible to receive a second personal promotion to P-2 level nor had any right to such a promotion. The ICAO Secretary-General accepted AJAB’s recommendation and rejected the request.
Staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules applicable to them and cannot rely on ignorance as an excuse. ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(2) does not oblige the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure. The administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7. 3 of the UNAT Statute, and Article 7. 3 must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8. 3 of the UNDT Statute.
No relief ordered; No relief ordered.