¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2019/020, Hailou

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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 effective date of the reclassification decision. Accordingly, the Applicant was not entitled to payment at the FS-6 level either by way of SPA or promotion before 2012. The Applicant was adequately compensated for performing higher-level functions at MONUSCO. The Applicant’s contention that her ineligibility for FCRB rostering and consideration for promotion to the FS-6 level was the fault of the Respondent because he did not advertise the post she encumbered for recruitment was entirely without merit. It was up to the Applicant who had successfully improved her academic qualifications to similarly seek other opportunities within the Organization to get on the FCRB FS-6 roster.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant challenged the decision not to grant her retroactive promotion to the FS-6 level and the denial of her request for Special Post Allowance (SPA), and the consequences (on her) of the post she encumbered being reclassified.

Legal Principle(s)

In reversing the UNDT decision in Elmi, UNAT held that the denial of retroactive promotion to the applicant was in full accord with staff rule 3.10 which governs the grant of SPAs. UNAT also held that under the applicable legal framework, promotions do not go into effect retroactively. It further noted that under section 10.2 of ST/AI/2010/3, the earliest possible date on which a promotion may become effective shall be the first day of the month following the promotion decision. About the applicant’s submission that an exception could be granted under staff rule 12.3(b), UNAT held that the respondent had exercised discretion in respect of whether to grant him a retroactive promotion when it declined the applicant’s request to do so.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

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
Hailou
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type