UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, UNAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the UNDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.
As to the second application, UNAT held that the Administration’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, deferring the staff member’s long?service step from 1 August 2026 to 1 August 2028, constituted a reviewable administrative decision because it produced direct legal consequences. The UNDT erred in finding that the 19 September 2023 communication was merely explanatory and not a new decision. The UNAT considered that the latter communication contained an interpretation of the term “salary increment” about which the parties disagreed. UNAT emphasized that disputes over interpretation and implementation of mediated agreements fall within UNDT jurisdiction under Article 8(2) of its Statute.
Accordingly, UNAT granted both appeals, reversed Judgment Nos. UNDT/2024/092 and UNDT/2024/097, and remanded the applications to the UNDT for determination on their merits.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Office in Vienna (UNOV) contested the Administration’s alleged failure to implement a Settlement Agreement to resolve a disciplinary dispute. Moreover, she contested the Administration’s decision to defer her eligibility for the long?service step increment from 1 August 2026 to 1 August 2028 following that Settlement Agreement.
The UNDT, in Judgment No. UNDT/2024/092, dismissed the first application as not receivable, finding that the Settlement Agreement had been fully implemented and did not address the deferment of salary increment. In Judgment No. UNDT/2024/097, the UNDT dismissed the second application as not receivable, holding that the 19 September 2023 communication was not a new administrative decision but a clarification of the unchanged disciplinary sanction imposed on 9 December 2022.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
An administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of another and produces direct legal consequences.
Determining what is an appealable administrative decision must be done on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the circumstances, taking into account the variety and different contexts of decision-making in the Organization. The nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision are key determinants of whether the decision in question is an administrative decision.
In circumstances when parties have a mediated resolution or settlement, the Administration’s interpretation and application of disputed terms of that agreement is an administrative decision that produces direct legal consequences to the staff member and to their terms of employment. Otherwise, there would be little to no legal recourse for a dispute on the interpretation of a mediated resolution or a settlement agreement.
In most circumstances, a dispute on the interpretation of the terms of an agreement that has not yet been implemented and is within the timelines outlined in Article 8(2) is likely receivable before the UNDT.