爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
On the issue of receivability, 爆料网AT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. 爆料网AT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. 爆料网AT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. 爆料网AT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of special compensation for working in hazardous duty stations is based on a general consideration of a category of staff members, in comparison to another category. 爆料网AT noted that different treatment becomes discriminatory when it negatively affects the rights of certain staff members or categories of them, due to unlawful reason; but when the approach is general by categories, there is no discrimination when the difference is motivated in the pursuit of general goals and policies and when it is not designed to treat individuals or categories of the unequally. 爆料网AT stated that the principle of equality meant equal treatment of equals, and also meant unequal treatment of unequals. 爆料网AT found no illegality in the administrative act of not awarding the Appellant hazard pay because it was part of the general treatment of the area staff member of 爆料网RWA, who are not entitled, under their terms of appointment, to that kind of payment, in contrast to international staff members. 爆料网AT clarified that 爆料网RWA area staff members are not part of the 爆料网 common system of salaries, allowances or other conditions of services. 爆料网AT noted that the entitlement to hazard pay to area staff members depends on the policies, procedures, rules and discretionary – but non-arbitrary – distribution of the budget by the 爆料网RWA Administration. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网RWA decision: The Applicant, an area staff member, contested the decision not to pay him to hazard pay, having not received a response to his request for such payment. Endorsing the recommendation of the Area Appeals Board, the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
Not taking a decision is also a decision; it is an implied decision. Equal pay for equal work does not prevent the legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. The principle of equality means equal treatment of equals; it also means unequal treatment of unequal.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
No relief ordered; No relief ordered