UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The UNAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor “de facto entitlement” to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the UNAT observed that the Administration followed the UNDSS Guidelines on allocation of overtime work, which established a procedure for equitably allocating overtime among interested employees.
Finally, the UNAT concluded that the staff member had not demonstrated that he suffered any direct adverse effect resulting from the contested decision, since despite being placed on the Priority Two List, he was granted an above-average amount of overtime compared to his peers during 2023.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2024/037.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS), contested the decision of the Administration to place him on a standby list (Priority Two List), rather than the Priority One overtime eligibility List (Priority One List), resulting in the denial of his request to work overtime on 10 April 2023.
In its Judgment on Receivability No. UNDT/2024/037, the UNDT dismissed the staff member’s application as not receivable ratione materiae, as he had not contested a reviewable administrative decision.
Staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Administrative decisions are characterized by the fact that they are taken by the Administration, they are unilateral and of individual application, and they carry direct legal consequences. The key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting the staff member’s terms and conditions of appointment. Thus, a statutory burden is placed upon the staff member to demonstrate that the administrative decision in issue was in non-compliance with the terms of his or her appointment or contract of employment.
An application challenging the Staff Regulations and Rules themselves is not receivable under the UNDT Statute.
Managerial conduct does not constitute a reviewable administrative decision if it is: i) a purely internal matter; ii) within the Organization’s managerial prerogative; iii) not adversely affecting the staff member’s rights; and iv) without any direct legal consequences to the terms and conditions of the staff member’s appointment.
There is no contractual right to perform overtime work, nor to select one’s own overtime schedule, but only a duty on the staff member to perform overtime work when requested to do so. The allocation of overtime work is discretionary with management, and a decision not to require a staff member to work overtime is not contrary to any term or condition of employment.