2019-UNAT-958 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2019-UNAT-958, Dispert & Ho

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the Appellants’ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. UNAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. UNAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. UNAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a neutral first instance, who took the final decision. UNAT remanded the matter to the SAB for decision.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The individuals requested their posts to be upgraded to a higher level. The Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rejected their requests upon advice from the IMO’s Classification Committee and the IMO’s internal appeals process (the Staff Appeals Board (SAB)), which both recommended that the posts stayed at their current grades.

Legal Principle(s)

UNAT is competent to hear appeals from an international organization or other entities participating in the common system of conditions of service where a special agreement has been concluded which accepts the jurisdiction of UNAT. However, such a special agreement may only be concluded where the organization or entity utilizes a neutral first instance process that includes a written record and written decision providing reasons, fact and law.

Outcome

Appeal 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

Dispert & Ho

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry Location :