ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

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: 227

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

  • 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;



  • Judgment 4138


    128th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Consideration 41

    Extract:

    [T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.8 of WIPO’s Staff Regulations and Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries to reflect the post adjustment classification established for the duty station by the ICSC. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.8 of WIPO’s Staff Regulations and Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 825

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 4137


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 20-22

    Extract:

    It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). 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, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 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 and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).

    The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).

    However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
    “[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
    To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676

    Keywords:

    methodology; post adjustment; salary;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.5 of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.5 of the ITU’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 825

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;

    Consideration 33

    Extract:

    T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;



  • Judgment 4136


    128th Session, 2019
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;

    Consideration 33

    Extract:

    [T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle ...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Regulation 3.1 of IOM’s Unified Staff Regulations and Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries by the application of the relevant post adjustments by the ICSC. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Regulation 3.1 of IOM’s Unified Staff Regulations and Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 825

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;

    Considerations 20-22

    Extract:

    It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). 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, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 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 and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).

    The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).

    However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
    “[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
    To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676

    Keywords:

    methodology; post adjustment; salary;



  • Judgment 4135


    128th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Considerations 25-27

    Extract:

    It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). 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, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 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 and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).

    The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).

    However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
    “[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
    To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676

    Keywords:

    methodology; post adjustment; salary;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Rule 335 of WHO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Rule 335 of WHO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 825

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;

    Consideration 40

    Extract:

    [T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle [...], is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; icsc decision; post adjustment; salary; scale;



  • Judgment 4134


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; en banc review; icsc decision; plenary judgment; post adjustment; salary; scale;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The salaries are essentially composed of two parts. One amount is the net salary, or base or floor salary as it is described in the United Nations common system, embodied in a prescribed salary scale. The other amount is the post adjustment established for each duty station arising from the application of Article 3.9 of the ILO’s Staff Regulations. That provision operates to adjust the salaries for cost-of-living variations at different duty stations. The post adjustment is determined by multiplying 1 per cent of the net salary by a multiplier, the PAM. The PAI informs the amount of the PAM together with other elements including exchange rates. This process underpins a significant element of the Noblemaire principle applicable to the salaries of international civil servants, namely that “the pay of international civil servants [should be] equivalent by making its real value, or purchasing power, as uniform as possible from one duty station to another” (see Judgment 825, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 3.9 of the ILO’s Staff Regulations
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 825

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary;

    Considerations 26-28

    Extract:

    It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). 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, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 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 and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).

    The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).

    However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
    “[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
    To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676

    Keywords:

    adjustment; methodology; post adjustment; salary;

    Consideration 41

    Extract:

    [T]he purpose for which the whole scheme of post adjustments was established, namely to give effect to the Noblemaire principle discussed earlier[,] is not to create economies by reducing salary costs even if, in relation to any particular duty station, that is a consequence of the operation of the scheme for the purpose for which it was established.

    Keywords:

    noblemaire principle; post adjustment; salary; un common system;



  • Judgment 4090


    127th Session, 2019
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the processing of his application for a disability benefit and the calculation of his sick leave entitlements.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Even accepting, for present purposes, that the field of operation of the Flemming principle would comprehend, as an aspect of establishing appropriate levels of pay, payment of sick leave entitlements, it is not appropriate to isolate one element of salary only and compare that element with prevailing local conditions. As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1334, consideration 24, “[the Flemming principle] offers [...] a guide for setting general levels of pay for local staff: it offers no basis for claims about any particular component of such pay”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1334

    Keywords:

    allowance; flemming principle; local status; salary; sick leave;

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


 
Last updated: 27.09.2022 ^ top