爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The 爆料网AT also held that the 爆料网DT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General’s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.
The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration’s decision not to reclassify his position.
The 爆料网AT held that the staff member should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts) and that by failing to do so, his application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable because it was premature. As the staff member’s application was not receivable, the 爆料网AT held that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case.
The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/013.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Appellant, a staff member of the United Nations Environment Programme (爆料网EP), contested the outcome of the 2010 reclassification process of his position of Team Assistant at the G-4 level.
In its Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/013, the 爆料网DT found that his application was premature and thus not receivable because he had not exhausted the remedy set out in ST/AI/1998/9 by submitting an appeal of the reclassification decision.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not the role of the 爆料网DT to assist the parties in their pleadings. Consequently, to be able to submit comments on the Secretary-General’s reply, a staff member should file a motion for additional pleadings.
An oral hearing before the 爆料网DT is not mandatory and the 爆料网AT should not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of the 爆料网DT in the management of cases.
The 爆料网DT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of judicial review.
Where statutory provisions exist to provide internal remedies, it is proper that staff members should exhaust those remedies before appealing the contested decision before the 爆料网DT.
The decision to appeal an administrative decision on reclassification is optional. However, should a staff member decide to exercise the right to appeal, the nature of such appeal must be as laid down in Section 6 of ST/AI/1998/9, which outlines a specific procedure for challenging a decision not to reclassify a post at a higher level. Indeed, the use of the words “shall” and “must”, clearly expressed in Section 6 of ST/AI/1998/9, indicates that this appeal procedure is mandatory.