AV

UNDT/2014/026

UNDT/2014/026, Tintukasiri et al

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, since it was directed against decisions with regulatory power. The issuance of secondary salary scales to staff recruited on or after 1 March 2012 is not of individual application and does not produce direct legal consequences; it constitutes an administrative act with regulatory power, but not an administrative decision under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. The freeze of existing salary scales in effect since 1 August 2010 applies to a group of staff members defined exclusively by their status and category within the Organization at a certain point in time and location, its application in time and duration cannot be determined; therefore, and in delimitation to UNAT Judgment Al Surkhi et al., the Applicants did not contest an administrative decision under art. 2.1(a). Regulatory acts: The Tribunal has no competence to rescind acts with regulatory power; however, it may examine the legality of such acts if and when a staff member directs his/her application against an administrative decision taken on the basis of such regulatory acts (e.g. monthly salary/payslip based on a salary scale fixed by the Secretary-General).

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants contest the outcome of the 2011 comprehensive local salary survey for Bangkok, which found that “current salaries for locally recruited staff were above the labour market when compared with the remuneration package of the retained comparators by 27,2% (General Service) and 41,4% (National Officer)” and resulted in the issuance of secondary salary scales for staff members recruited after 1 March 2012 and freeze of existing salary scales, in effect since 1 August 2010, until the gap flagged by the survey is closed.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed as not receivable

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.

Applicants/Appellants
Tintukasiri et al
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type