Freeze of salary (714,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Freeze of salary
Total judgments found: 2

• Judgment 3740

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the legality of changes to the FAO General Service category staff salary scale consequent to the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that the revised salary scale was not applied to the complainants and did not adversely and directly affect them. However, as of 1 February 2013 up to the date the secondary salary scale reached the primary salary scale applicable to the complainants, the complainants would not be paid any interim salary adjustments, that is, their salaries were frozen. Although the February paysheets therefore did not reflect any change in their salaries, nor would any change be reflected in subsequent paysheets while the freeze was in effect, at that point in time it was evident that the salary freeze was liable to cause them financial injury. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. Accordingly, the complaints are receivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; freeze of salary; payslip;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3739

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges changes to the IFAD General Service Staff salary scale as a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that the revised salary scale was not applied to the complainant and did not adversely and directly affect him. However, as of 1 February 2013 up to the date at which the secondary salary scale reached the level of the primary salary scale applicable to the complainant, the complainant would not be paid any interim salary adjustments, that is, his salary was frozen. Although the February payroll therefore did not reflect any change in his salary, nor would any change be reflected in subsequent payrolls while the freeze was in effect, at that point in time it was evident that the salary freeze was liable to cause him financial injury. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. Accordingly, the complaint is receivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; freeze of salary; payslip;