Judgment No. 3877
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the date on which her retroactive promotion took effect.
As the complaint turns on a simple question of law, and the submissions of the parties are sufficient to allow the Tribunal to reach a reasoned decision, there is no need to hold hearings.
With regard to the request for the production of documents, the request was cast in the most general and imprecise terms and is rejected (see Judgments 2497, under 15, 3345, under 9, and 3418, under 13).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2497, 3345, 3418
disclosure of evidence
The objective of retroactivity is to put the staff member in the position that she or he would have been in if the decision had been taken at the relevant time. As such, barring a specific rule or regulation to the contrary, only the staff memberís situation at the time of the effect of the retroactive action (and not the staff memberís situation at the time the decision is taken) can be taken into account. The limit to this is that the retroactive action cannot put the staff member in a worse position than she or he would be without the implementation of the action.
The Tribunal notes that any injury resulting from the four-month delay in implementing the retroactive promotion was remedied by the retroactive payment of arrears plus interest at 5 per cent.