����AV

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 hired as a Clerk at the GS-3 level in 1997, and not the decision concerning the level he should have been hired at. These are two entirely different administrative decisions. UNDT held that as the correct classification of a post is a staff member’s contractual right, when appointed to Clerk at the GS-3 level, the Applicant had a right to be hired against a post classified at the GS-3 level. UNDT held that the administrative decision under review in the case is the decision by which the Applicant was recruited against an unclassified post when he was hired as a Clerk at the GS-3 level in 1997 it is not the decision concerning the level he should have been hired at. UNDT held that if it were to award the Applicant retroactive payment at the GS-5 level for the failure of appointing him against a classified post, it would have to do so by giving effect to a possible right for him to be appointed at this higher level. Not only would this amount to specific performance under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure rather than compensation under its art. 10.5(b), but it would require the Tribunal to make a determination on the appropriate classification of the post at the material time, which is not a function of this Tribunal and speculative. UNDT held that the Applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever to substantiate any harm in connection with him being incorrectly hired against an unclassified post. UNDT rejected the Applicant’s claim for compensation for loss of chance extremely remote, speculative, and based on the rejected claim that the Applicant was incorrectly hired at the GS-3 level and not the GS-5 level. Related