Salary (329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 677,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Salary
Total judgments found: 233

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >

• Judgment 4803

  
  137th Session, 2024
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests amendments made to the procedure for adjusting remuneration as reflected in his payslips.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [H]aving regard to the Appeals Committee’s findings, it is not inevitable, certain or even likely there will be future injury to the complainant. It remains the position generally that an abstract change of methodology of salary calculation or the calculation of other emoluments is challengeable when it is implemented or, exceptionally, when future injury is certain or likely. Thus, in Judgment 4075, recently reiterated in Judgments 4381, consideration 11, and 4380, consideration 8, for instance, the Tribunal concluded that the complaint was irreceivable as beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4380, 4381
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; injury; salary;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; payslip; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4777

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  [A]ccording to well-established case law of the Tribunal, the general principle of good faith and the duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury and that an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that might imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 4072, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal considers that this obligation to act in good faith and this duty of care do not – despite what the complainant submits to the contrary, without identifying anything in the Tribunal’s case law to substantiate his argument – extend to a requirement for the organisation to take the initiative to calculate the loss or gain in salary which might result from a promotion from a grade G post to a grade P post for any staff member interested in applying for such a promotion.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4072
  

  Keywords:

  duty of care; duty to inform; good faith; salary;
  

  Considerations 7-9

  Extract:

  The complainant concludes that the higher the grade, the higher the remuneration ought to be, so that a promotion should necessarily lead to a significant increase in pay.
  However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that, as the organisation rightly points out in its submissions, the methodology that has been embodied and applied in the United Nations system for decades for determining salaries does not show a linear continuity between the responsibilities and levels of pay at the higher grades in category G and those at the lower grades in category P. Secondly, it is apparent from the submissions and the evidence that to accede to the complainant’s claim for a higher level of remuneration in his grade P.3 post than that resulting from the adjustment already awarded to him on the basis of the remuneration he received at grade G.6 would, on the contrary, amount to a deviation from the principle of equal pay for equal work when compared with other ITU staff members at grade P.3 who did not come from the General Service category.
  In that regard, the Tribunal already recalled, in its Judgment 1196, consideration 19, that it is well known that different salary scales exist for the General Service category and the Professional category, which in itself neither is discriminatory nor constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment, emphasising the following:
  “[A]ccording to consistent precedent the distinction between international and local staff is a fundamental one inherent in the very nature of an international organisation. It is due to the peculiar circumstances in which such organisations work and it is concurred in, with both its advantages and its drawbacks, by anyone who seeks employment with them, be it in one category of staff or in the other. Each category of staff offers career prospects and conditions of recruitment and pay that differ according to its own requirements, and a staff member may not plead breach of equal treatment if treated differently because he belongs to one category rather than to the other.”
  Similarly, in Judgment 498, consideration 1, the Tribunal had made the following remarks in relation to those distinctions:
  “G staff are recruited largely in [the headquarters country] or neighbouring countries. It is therefore only right that [...] their pay [...] should be in line with pay scales in [the headquarters country]. Officials in other categories, however, may come from and be required to serve anywhere in the world. [...] [The organisation] takes as its standard of comparison the best-paid national civil service. Consequently the allegation of unlawful discrimination fails.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1196
  

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general service category; professional category; promotion; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4656

  
  136th Session, 2023
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: ITU has filed an application for the interpretation of order 2 of the decision contained in Judgment 4515.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  [I]n light of the Tribunal’s guidance, in Judgment 2988, consideration 4, [...] an organization’s duty to calculate staff salaries and benefits in accordance with its regulations and rules applies equally to the calculation of the amount due for salary and benefits pursuant to a judgment of the Tribunal.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2988
  

  Keywords:

  allowance; execution of judgment; payment; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4579

  
  135th Session, 2023
  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The organization shall pay the complainant the equivalent of the salary and various indemnities, net of any income from other employment received as from the date of the discharge and until the date of effective reinstatement and should restore his pension rights. All these amounts shall bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum as from the date on which they fell due until the date of their payment.

  Keywords:

  interest on arrears; material damages; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4577

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Tourism Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Follow-up judgment for the determination of material damages and consequential orders.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  One point of difference is whether the loss of future income should be assessed by reference to a retirement age from UNWTO of 62 years or 65 years. The latter is the normal age of retirement but, it appears from the material before the Tribunal, the complainant would have had the option of retiring at 62 years.

  Keywords:

  material damages; retirement age; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4576

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Tourism Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: Follow-up judgment for the determination of material damages and consequential orders.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  One point of difference is whether the loss of future income should be assessed by reference to a retirement age from UNWTO of 62 years or 65 years. The latter is the normal age of retirement but, it appears from the material before the Tribunal, the complainant would have had the option of retiring at 62 years.

  Keywords:

  material damages; retirement age; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4479

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the changes made with respect to their salary resulting from the decision of the Director-General to implement the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; icsc decision; precedent; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4458

  
  133rd Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks the setting aside of the information circular which, according to her, announced the closure of the UNESCO Commissary.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [I]t should be noted that, although the opportunity to purchase consumer goods free of duty or tax was plainly financially advantageous to the officials who joined the Commissary, it cannot be regarded as part of their remuneration. As the Tribunal has already held, the benefits of access to a commissary cannot be so classified, since they result from a tax privilege granted directly to the officials concerned by the host country and not from an expense borne by the organisation concerned (see Judgments 1000, consideration 16, and 1001, consideration 16).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1000, 1001
  

  Keywords:

  facilities; host state; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4435

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who is a former permanent employee of the European Patent Office, challenges the deductions from his remuneration that were made in respect of his absences for strike participation as well as the lawfulness of the general normative decisions on which those deductions were based.

  Considerations 14-16

  Extract:

  The question that immediately arises, in the Tribunal’s view, is whether Article 65(1)(c) is punitive. In its pleas, the EPO acknowledges that the 1/30 method would still be used to calculate salary deductions for other authorized absences which include unpaid leave on personal grounds, parental leave and family leave. The EPO argues absences on such leave include weekend days as part of, to use the EPO’s expression, the absence period (because such leave must be for a minimum of 14 days), which justifies the use of the 1/30 method. But this, in the context of the present discussion, is a flawed argument. To speak of an “absence period” obscures the fact that if, for example, a member of staff was on 14 days authorized leave on personal grounds, she or he would, at least ordinarily, be absent from work for 10 working days. In relation to each of those working days 1/30 of the monthly salary is deducted. Conceptually, weekend days are days of rest for which the employer pays.
  Moreover, if in any respect, the deduction for working days on strike could materially exceed, in aggregate, the amount a staff member would have earned had they worked, then the provision is punitive in character. The complainant has demonstrated this is so by reference to an example involving a strike for an entire month where the number of working days for that month exceeds 20 (a common occurrence). In such a circumstance, the amount deducted for working days on strike for that month by application of Article 65(1)(c) would exceed the monthly salary payable for that month.
  While the following, of itself, does not establish Article 65(1)(c) is punitive, it is nonetheless the position that the amount deducted for each day of unauthorised absence (which is, prima facie, misconduct) is the same as the amount deducted for each day a member of staff is on strike, which is entirely lawful conduct. This lends support to a conclusion that Article 65(1)(c) is punitive. The EPO relies on observations in Judgment 566, consideration 5, in which the Tribunal said: “Even where a strike is not an abuse of right an organisation would of course be entitled to make special rules on salary deductions different from the rules on absence from duty for other reasons”. However, these observations cannot be taken to be a license to adopt rules in relation to salary deductions for absences on strike which are of a punitive character.

  Keywords:

  deduction; hidden disciplinary measure; right to strike; salary; strike;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; deduction; hidden disciplinary measure; right to strike; salary; strike;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4433

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to treat his participation in a strike as an unauthorised absence.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike; unauthorised absence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4428

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal of her request to combine a half day of absence for strike participation with a half day of leave.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4421

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the deductions made from her remuneration in respect of her absences due to participation in strikes.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; deduction; right to strike; salary; strike;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4393

  
  131st Session, 2021
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in his total net remuneration following his promotion to a higher grade arguing that it constitutes a breach of Article 49(13) of the Service Regulations.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; promotion; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4381

  
  131st Session, 2021
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to her salary.

  Consideration 28

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal’s case law does not support an approach to determining whether an acquired right has been breached which entails the examination of an altered “package” of salary and benefits to justify a conclusion that the alteration of any given element of the package involved a violation or breach of an acquired right. The logical consequences of this approach would be that even though such an alteration to a given element may be minimal or entirely justified or both, because other changes are made to other elements of the “package” the minimal or justified alteration can be characterised as a breach of an acquired right. There is no principled basis for taking this approach though the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that situations may arise where the effect of the alteration of a limited number of related benefits might be viewed as relevant to the characterisation of one alteration as being a breach of an acquired right.

  Keywords:

  acquired right; salary;
  

  Consideration 29

  Extract:

  [T]he ICSC’s reasons for the proposed changes to salaries and benefits impugned in these proceedings were rational, logical and credible. They did not involve an elimination of the benefit but the modification of how, why and in what circumstances the benefit would be paid. Their adoption by the WFP (notwithstanding opposition when being originally proposed) was in conformity with obligations arising from membership of the UN common system. This is a valid reason for change (see Judgment 1446, consideration 14), at least in the absence of any apparent unlawfulness attending the change either procedurally or substantively.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1446
  

  Keywords:

  icsc decision; salary;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  acquired right; complaint dismissed; icsc decision; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4380

  
  131st Session, 2021
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the changes made with respect to his salary.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal’s case law does not support an approach to determining whether an acquired right has been breached which entails the examination of an altered “package” of salary and benefits to justify a conclusion that the alteration of any given element of the package involved a violation or breach of an acquired right. The logical consequences of this approach would be that even though such an alteration to a given element may be minimal or entirely justified or both, because other changes are made to other elements of the “package” the minimal or justified alteration can be characterised as a breach of an acquired right. There is no principled basis for taking this approach though the Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that situations may arise where the effect of the alteration of a limited number of related benefits might be viewed as relevant to the characterisation of one alteration as being a breach of an acquired right.

  Keywords:

  acquired right; salary;
  

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  [T]he ICSC’s reasons for the proposed changes to salaries and benefits impugned in these proceedings were rational, logical and credible. They did not involve an elimination of the benefit but the modification of how, why and in what circumstances the benefit would be paid. Their adoption by the WFP (notwithstanding opposition when being originally proposed) was in conformity with obligations arising from membership of the UN common system. This is a valid reason for change (see Judgment 1446, consideration 14), at least in the absence of any apparent unlawfulness attending the change either procedurally or substantively.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1446
  

  Keywords:

  icsc decision; salary;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  acquired right; complaint dismissed; icsc decision; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4277

  
  130th Session, 2020
  International Bureau of Weights and Measures
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.

  Considerations 17-18

  Extract:

  The complainant alleges a breach of the principle, upheld in the Tribunal’s case law, that the methodology chosen by an organisation to set salary adjustments for its staff must ensure “stable, foreseeable and clearly understood” results. That principle applies both to the remuneration of international civil servants and their retirement pensions (see Judgments 1821, under 7, and the judgments cited therein, and 2793, under 20). In support of this plea, she submits that there were four successive reforms in a period of only eight years, that the Organisation exercises its discretion without adequate safeguards and that the actuarial report contains blatant errors.
  As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4134 (under 26), 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, under 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, under 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” (see Judgment 2420, under 15).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 1912, 2420, 2793, 3676, 4134
  

  Keywords:

  methodology; pension; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4273

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, an organisation has broad discretion when altering salary structures and grading systems (see Judgments 2778, under 7, 3921, under 11, and 4134, under 26 and 49) and classifying officials individually (see, for example, Judgment 1495, under 14). Decisions on such matters are therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will censure them only if they have been taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if they are based on an error of fact or law, if some essential fact was overlooked, if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence or if there was misuse of authority.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1495, 2778, 3921, 4134
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; grade; judicial review; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4249

  
  129th Session, 2020
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of the 2013 comprehensive local salary survey for New Delhi, India.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general service category; material injury; salary;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to address all the arguments raised by the parties or to embark on an analysis of the methodology and associated issues attending the 2013 survey. That is because the complainants, in substance, succeeded in their challenge to the decision taken on or about 30 October 2014 to implement the results of the 2013 local salary survey[.]

  Keywords:

  cause of action; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4236

  
  129th Session, 2020
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the results of the comprehensive local salary survey of 2013 for New Delhi, India.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;
  

  Considerations 3-4

  Extract:

  Both in their briefs and in the common rejoinder, the complainants refer to several earlier judgments of the Tribunal, namely Judgments 522, 663, 1618 and 2244 in support of the contention that the complaints are receivable. The Director-General relied on Judgment 3427 in his letter of 5 September 2017 and WHO relies in its pleas on Judgments 3736, 3921 and 3931 to argue the complaints are not receivable. Certainly the contemporary case law of the Tribunal supports the argument of WHO. It is sufficient to refer to Judgment 3931. The circumstances considered in that judgment align almost completely with the circumstances in this matter. The Tribunal said:
  “3. [...] The result of the impugned decision was that the salaries of staff who had been recruited before 1 November 2014 would be frozen and staff recruited after that date would receive salaries under a new salary scale. All the complainants were recruited before 1 November 2014. An aspect of the Organization’s argument is that the freezing of salaries results in the continued payment of pre-existing salaries with no injurious effect. However, an argument to the same effect in relation to a salary freeze was rejected by the Tribunal in Judgment 3740, consideration 11. It is unnecessary to repeat the analysis that, with one important qualification, is apt to apply in the present case. The qualification is this. In the case leading to Judgment 3740 the complainants lodged internal appeals against ‘the individual administrative decisions to apply to [each complainant] the statutory decision consisting of the revision of the remuneration of the [General Service category] Staff stationed in Rome’ as reflected in their respective February 2013 pay slips. Challenging a pay slip is an orthodox and accepted mechanism whereby an individual staff member can challenge a general decision as and when it is implemented in a way that affects or is likely to affect that individual staff member.
  4. In the present case, the complainants’ causes of action are not based on pay slips. They seek to challenge the general decision embodied in the Administrative Order of 1 October 2014 vide Dossier 2-1 New Delhi. They cannot do so. The distinction between challenging a general decision and challenging the implementation of the general decision as applied to an individual staff member is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests. It is a distinction rooted in the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred by the Tribunal’s Statute. The Tribunal must act within the limits established by the Statute. There are many statements in the Tribunal’s case law about the nature of this jurisdiction and its limits. One example of a comparatively recent discussion of those limits and how they arise from the Statute is found in Judgment 3642, consideration 11. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3760, consideration 6: ‘[t]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, under the Statute construed as a whole, concerned with the vindication or enforcement of individual rights (see, for example, Judgment 3642, under 11).’”
  It bears repeating that the need to challenge an individual decision is not a barren technical point to frustrate individual staff members from pursuing their rights or protecting their interests but rather arises from the nature of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. For example, in the present case, the relief the complainants seek includes setting aside the decision of the Director-General dated 5 September 2017 and rescinding the results of the 2013 salary survey as announced in the email of 7 October 2014. But orders of this type would apply to all staff affected by both the decision of 5 September 2017 and the email of 7 October 2014 irrespective of whether those staff agreed to or supported that outcome.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 522, 663, 1618, 2244, 3427, 3642, 3736, 3740, 3760, 3921, 3931
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; general decision; receivability of the complaint; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4168

  
  128th Session, 2019
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the retroactive calculation of his salary after he was promoted.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; retroactive promotion; salary;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 | next >