UNDT/2024/047, Argyrou
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant’s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.
As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant’s deadlines to seek judicial recourse and proceed to address his challenges.
Regarding the first challenge, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was not provided with a copy of the classification results. However, he was informed of its outcome by email on 4 June 2020. Under the jurisprudence of implied administrative decision, this could be considered the date of the contested administrative decision. Notwithstanding, if the Tribunal were to be more benevolent by accepting that the date at which the Applicant knew of the “implied contested decision” was the date that the post he encumbered was announced at the GS-7 level, that would have been on 24 May 2021, when the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira.
Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(a) and (c), to seek judicial recourse against the Administration’s alleged failure, the Applicant should have sought management evaluation within 60 calendar days counted from either 4 June 2020 or 24 May 2021, namely by either 3 August 2020 or 23 July 2021. He did so only on 3 August 2023, evidently much later after the deadline to seek management evaluation expired in either case.
In the interest of clarity, the Tribunal further highlighted that even if the application were found receivable, it would have also failed in its merits. Once a reclassification exercise is complete and a post is upgraded, the staff member encumbering said post does not have a right to be automatically promoted. Accordingly, the Applicant’s request for “payment at the proper rate” was baseless.
The failure of the Administration to provide him with a copy of the notice of the 2020 classification results of the post he encumbered, and the advertisement of the job opening of his upgraded position only after he separated from service.
The Dispute Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal’s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable.
Under the jurisprudence of implied administrative decisions, it is well established that the date of a contested implied administrative decision must be determined as that on which a staff member knew or reasonably should have known about it.