Judgment No. 3739
The complaint is dismissed.
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.
icsc decision; salary; impugned decision; complaint dismissed
[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 latter not being in issue in this proceeding. The revised salary scale recommendation was silent with respect to all of the other matters dealt with in the 31 January 2013 President’s Bulletin. In particular, it did not deal with setting an implementation date; the application of the revised salary scale to only certain staff members; or the freezing of interim adjustments for staff appointed prior to 1 February 2013. As the record shows, none of these measures were explicitly mandated by the revised ICSC salary scale recommendation. Out of several possible options for the implementation of the recommendation, these are the measures IFAD decided to adopt. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the interim adjustment freeze was derived from the ICSC’s allegedly illegal decision and that it was not a measure that IFAD decided to adopt from among options for implementation of the ICSC recommendation.
icsc decision; salary; impugned decision
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.
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3168
cause of action; payslip; freeze of salary