Judgment No. 3740
The complaints are dismissed.
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.
icsc decision; general service category; salary
In the complainants’ common brief, they raise the same issues of fact and law and seek the same redress. Accordingly, their complaints are joined and will be the subject of a single judgment.
[I]t must be observed that, according to the documents that have been presented to the Tribunal, the recommendations in the relevant ICSC decisions were limited to and only established two things: a revised salary scale for the GS category in Rome and revised levels for dependency allowances. The recommendations were silent with respect to all of the other matters dealt with in the 25 January 2013 Administrative Circular. […]As the record shows, none of these measures were mandated by or derived from the new ICSC salary scale or dependency allowance recommendations or were necessary for their implementation. Out of a number of possible options for the implementation of the recommendations, these are the measures FAO decided to adopt. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the interim adjustment freeze or the break in service and reappointment salary consequences were derived from the ICSC’s allegedly illegal decision and were not measures that the FAO decided to adopt as options for implementation of the ICSC recommendations.
icsc decision; salary; impugned decision
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.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
cause of action; pay slip; freeze of salary