|
|
 |
|
|
Post adjustment (374,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Post adjustment
Total judgments found: 20
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 41
Extract:
[T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.8 of WIPO’s Staff Regulations and Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries to reflect the post adjustment classification established for the duty station by the ICSC. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.8 of WIPO’s Staff Regulations and Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 825
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 50
Extract:
It is necessary to consider what is the appropriate relief. In a number of cases in which the complainants have established that a decision to adjust salaries was unlawful, the order of the Tribunal has been to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the matter to the organization to consider the matter afresh and make a new decision (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 11, and 3324, considerations 22 and 23). However, in the present case, the unlawfulness of the administration’s decision flowed from the unlawfulness of the decision of the ICSC. The decisions to implement ICSC/CIRC/PAC/518 and ICSC/CIRC/PAC/522 are unlawful. WIPO cannot, by a new decision, render the ICSC’s decisions lawful. Accordingly, WIPO should be ordered to reinstate the applicable PAM in place immediately before the decision to reduce salaries was taken and pay the complainants the salary lost between then and the time the PAM is reinstated, together with interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 3324
Keywords:
compensation; icsc decision; material damages; post adjustment;
Considerations 26-28
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 32
Extract:
The ICSC did not have power to decide, itself, the amounts of post adjustments with the ultimate consequence that the salaries of Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above be reduced. The ICSC could only make recommendations and not decide on amounts. That was the preserve of the General Assembly.
Keywords:
icsc decision; post adjustment;
Consideration 42
Extract:
It is necessary to consider what is the appropriate relief. In a number of cases in which the complainants have established that a decision to adjust salaries was unlawful, the order of the Tribunal has been to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the matter to the organization to consider the matter afresh and make a new decision (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 11, and 3324, considerations 22 and 23). However, in the present case, the unlawfulness of the administration’s decision flowed from the unlawfulness of the decision of the ICSC. The decisions to implement ICSC/CIRC/PAC/518 and ICSC/CIRC/PAC/522 are unlawful. The ITU cannot, by a new decision, render the ICSC’s decisions lawful. Accordingly, the ITU should be ordered to reinstate the applicable PAM in place immediately before the decision to reduce salaries was taken and pay the complainants and interveners the salary lost between then and the time the PAM is reinstated, together with interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 3324
Keywords:
compensation; icsc decision; material damages; post adjustment;
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.5 of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.5 of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 825
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 33
Extract:
T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;
Consideration 33
Extract:
[T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle ...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.1 of IOM’s Unified Staff Regulations and Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries by the application of the relevant post adjustments by the ICSC. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.1 of IOM’s Unified Staff Regulations and Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 825
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 42
Extract:
It is necessary to consider what is the appropriate relief. In a number of cases in which the complainants have established that a decision to adjust salaries was unlawful, the order of the Tribunal has been to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the matter to the organization to consider the matter afresh and make a new decision (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 11, and 3324, consideration 22). However, in the present case, the unlawfulness of the administration’s decision flowed from the unlawfulness of the decision of the ICSC. The decisions to implement ICSC/CIRC/PAC/518 and ICSC/CIRC/PAC/522 are unlawful. IOM cannot, by a new decision, render the ICSC’s decisions lawful. Accordingly, IOM should be ordered to reinstate the applicable PAM in place immediately before the decision to reduce salaries was taken and pay the complainants and interveners the salary lost between then and the time the PAM is reinstated, together with interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 3324
Keywords:
compensation; icsc decision; material damages; post adjustment;
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 32
Extract:
The ICSC did not have power to decide, itself, the amounts of post adjustments with the ultimate consequence that the salaries of Geneva-based Professional category and above be reduced. The ICSC could only make recommendations and not decide on amounts. That was the preserve of the General Assembly.
Keywords:
icsc decision; post adjustment;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 39
Extract:
The ICSC did not have power to decide, itself, the amounts of post adjustments with the ultimate consequence that the salaries of Geneva-based Professional category and above be reduced. The ICSC could only make recommendations and not decide on amounts. That was the preserve of the General Assembly.
Keywords:
icsc decision; post adjustment;
Considerations 25-27
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Rule 335 of WHO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Rule 335 of WHO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules
ILOAT Judgment(s): 825
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 40
Extract:
[T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;
Consideration 49
Extract:
It is necessary to consider what is the appropriate relief. In a number of cases in which the complainants have established that a decision to adjust salaries was unlawful, the order of the Tribunal has been to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the matter to the organization to consider the matter afresh and make a new decision (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 11, and 3324, considerations 22 and 23). However, in the present case, the unlawfulness of the administration’s decision flowed from the unlawfulness of the decision of the ICSC. The decisions to implement ICSC/CIRC/PAC/518 and ICSC/CIRC/PAC/522 are unlawful. WHO cannot, by a new decision, render the ICSC’s decisions lawful. Accordingly, WHO should be ordered to reinstate the applicable PAM in place immediately before the decision to reduce salaries was taken and pay the complainants and interveners the salary lost between then and the time the PAM is reinstated, together with interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 3324
Keywords:
compensation; icsc decision; material damages; post adjustment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; en banc review; icsc decision; plenary judgment; post adjustment; salary; scale;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Article 3.9 of the ILO’s Staff Regulations. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 3.9 of the ILO’s Staff Regulations
ILOAT Judgment(s): 825
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 40
Extract:
The ICSC did not have power to decide, itself, the amounts of post adjustments with the ultimate consequence that the salaries of Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above be reduced. The ICSC could only make recommendations and not decide on amounts. That was the preserve of the General Assembly.
Keywords:
icsc decision; post adjustment;
Considerations 26-28
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
adjustment; methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 41
Extract:
[T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle discussed earlier[,] is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.
Keywords:
noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;
Consideration 50
Extract:
It is necessary to consider what is the appropriate relief. In a number of cases in which the complainants have established that a decision to adjust salaries was unlawful, the order of the Tribunal has been to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the matter to the organization to consider the matter afresh and make a new decision (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 11, and 3324, considerations 22 and 23). However, in the present case, the unlawfulness of the administration’s decision flowed from the unlawfulness of the decision of the ICSC. The decisions to implement ICSC/CIRC/PAC/518 and ICSC/CIRC/PAC/522 are unlawful. The ILO cannot, by a new decision, render the ICSC’s decisions lawful. Accordingly, the ILO should be ordered to reinstate the applicable PAM in place immediately before the decision to reduce salaries was taken and pay the complainants and interveners the salary lost between then and the time the PAM are reinstated, together with interest.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 3324
Keywords:
compensation; icsc decision; material damages; post adjustment;
Judgment 3885
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to defer the promulgation of the revised post adjustment multiplier for staff of the UN system working in New York.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; staff representative;
Judgment 3360
118th Session, 2014
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaints seeking a review of the decision to apply to the complainants’ salaries the post adjustment calculated on the basis of the ICSC 2010 cost-of-living survey for Vienna.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; cost-of-living increase; noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment 1800
86th Session, 1999
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainants' [...] plea is that the sole purpose of the change in the rules on the [post adjustment] index [decided by the ICSC] was to save money. The Tribunal need only quote the reply it gave to that argument in Judgment 1776: 'If the new method is lawful the fact that applying it saves member States money cannot in itself be a flaw.' And the evidence suggests no misuse of authority by the [ICSC], which, against the odds, tries to find from time to time objective criteria for reckoning post adjustment throughout the common system."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1776
Keywords:
abuse of power; amendment to the rules; budgetary reasons; case law; icsc decision; member state; misuse of authority; official; post adjustment; reckoning; right; salary;
Judgment 1765
85th Session, 1998
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The International Civil Service Commission made a mistake in reckoning the multiplier used to work out the post adjustment in Geneva. "[The Organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff."
Keywords:
adjustment; breach; decision; icsc decision; organisation's duties; post adjustment; right; salary;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The International Civil Service Commission made a mistake in reckoning the multiplier used to work out the post adjustment for Geneva from July 1994. "There is no merit to the Commission's plea that, not having got word of the mistake until August 1995, it need not apply the proper multiplier until four months later. For one thing [...] the data needed to put it right had been readily at hand for well over a year. It was for want, not of information, but of care on the part of the Commission or its secretariat that the mistake came about. For another thing, the plea betrays an utter failure to grasp what the four-month rule means. [...] It has no bearing whatever on the Commission's correction of any mistake of its own making."
Keywords:
adjustment; cost-of-living increase; icsc decision; liability; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment 1604
82nd Session, 1997
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainants want the ICSC to correct a mistake it made in reckoning their post adjustment retroactively. The Tribunal holds that "making a decision retroactive would require the calculation of the past pay of all the staff concerned, including those who have since left. The Commission's practice is to have its decisions take effect only in a few months' time so that the Secretariat and the organisations may make the calculations. The Tribunal concludes that it is neither necessary nor even reasonable to require retroactive application of the revised method. [...] All the Commission can do is to keep [the various elements] under review and, when defects do emerge, revise the method so as to make the correction reasonably soon."
Keywords:
decision; effect; icsc decision; non-retroactivity; post adjustment; reckoning; salary; scale;
Judgment 1460
79th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The system of post adjustment is of no relevance to differences in working hours [between the headquarter cities of the common system], being concerned solely with parity of purchasing power, and is not an appropriate means of securing compensation for differences in working hours between duty stations. The system makes no provision for such equalisation of working hours."
Keywords:
coordinated organisations; duty station; headquarters; post adjustment; professional category; salary; working hours;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The whole time of staff members in the professional and higher categories is at the organization's disposal and they are properly expected to complete the work assigned to them without compensation for any overtime. It is therefore permissible to base their working week on the conditions prevailing at their duty station and to make no adjustment in pay to take account of differences in hours of work within the common system."
Keywords:
duty station; overtime; post adjustment; professional category; staff member's duties; working hours;
Judgment 1458
79th Session, 1995
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Advisory Committee on Post Adjustment Questions (ACPAQ) is a subsidiary body of the International Civil Service Commission set up with the approval of the General Assembly to make recommendations on the general administration of the system of post adjustments. "It has no authority to make decisions. Its recommendations become part of the post adjustment system only when approved by the Commission. The conclusion is that the recommendation of ACPAQ [...] has no binding force and is therefore irrelevant".
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; icsc decision; internal appeals body; post adjustment; recommendation;
Judgment 831
62nd Session, 1987
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"Another plea of the complainants' is that the [International Civil Service] Commission misused its authority by availing itself of the post adjustment with the improper intent of checking an allegedly undue widening of the margin. One reason why the plea fails is that, as has been seen, the Commission acted intra vires. In authorising the Commission to suspend the increase in the post adjustment the Assembly also authorised the purpose of doing so."
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 830
62nd Session, 1987
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 829
62nd Session, 1987
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
Vide Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 828
62nd Session, 1987
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 827
62nd Session, 1987
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 826
62nd Session, 1987
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 825
62nd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
See Judgment 831, consideration 22.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 831
Keywords:
abuse of power; adjustment; icsc decision; judicial review; misuse of authority; post adjustment; salary; suspensive action;
Judgment 374
42nd Session, 1979
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"It is clear from the wording of [Judgment 306] that the 'one year's salary' to be paid in lieu of reinstatement is equivalent in the present instance to the salary which the complainant was receiving at the date when his appointment ended, i.e. the net salary which he was paid after deduction of tax at the source but including incidental allowances, and in particular post adjustment. There is no reason however to take account of any increment which he might have received had he remained on the staff."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 306
Keywords:
allowance; amount; application for interpretation; definition; increment; material damages; net salary; post adjustment; salary;
|
|
|
|
|
