爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The Secretary-General appealed. 爆料网AT allowed the Secretary-General’s appeal and set aside the 爆料网DT’s Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the correct way to make the comparison to ensure that the minimum increase in net base salary under Staff Rule 3.4(b) is achieved for the staff member is to compare both remunerations shorn of their COL and post adjustment elements and of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez’s assessments under each. 爆料网AT found that although not perfect because of the potential variability of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez’s personal assessments under each, it achieves the required comparator using the GS net base salary and ensures a like-for-like (or apples-with-apples) comparison. 爆料网AT held that when the correct comparison of net base salaries was applied, Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez’s remuneration in her P-2 role had not miscalculated.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Before the 爆料网DT, Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez claimed that he had been wrongly placed at Step 1 at the P-2 level following a promotion from her G-6 level, Step 11, and in particular that any post adjustment should not have been part of her base salary calculation. The 爆料网DT found that the case turned on the interpretation of Staff Rule 3.4(b) (and in particular on the words “net base salary” within it). The 爆料网DT identified the subsequent “key question” as being whether it was lawful to include the P category post adjustment payment in the calculation of net base salary when determining what step she was to be remunerated at. The 爆料网DT concluded that it was unlawful for the Headquarters Client Services Service to take post adjustment into account when deciding Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez’s step following her promotion from G-6, Step 11 to the P-2 level. This was said because, as the 爆料网DT expressed it, “‘net base salary’ is correctly determined as ‘gross base salary’, as per the offer of appointment, minus staff assessment”. Remedially, Ms. Gonzalez-Vasquez was awarded specific performance of her contract’s remuneration provisions as interpreted by the Tribunal.
Legal Principle(s)
None.