A call to all staff
For solidarity to safeguard our conditions of service

UN staff file Il appeals at the ILO Tribunal against an unfair and arbitrary decision of the UN General Assembly

The salaries of the Professionals and higher categories are determined by the Noblemaire Principle, which is currently interpreted as saying that the international civil service should be on par with the highest paid national civil service. The US was chosen as the comparator. The UN General Assembly itself has over the years repeatedly reaffirmed a margin range of 110 to 120 with a desirable mid-point of 115, yet the average margin continues to stagnate below that level. The monitoring of the margin has been delegated to a technical body, the ICSC (International Civil Service Commission) which makes recommendations on professional salaries to the UN General Assembly, with whom the final decision lies.

If the Noblemaire principle is set aside, the agreed standard for establishing common system salaries will be lost. Salaries, and indeed all benefits for both the Professionals and General Service category will be set by the political whims of the General Assembly. This is not merely about salaries, but about the basic principles governing our current and future conditions of service.

Background events leading to the margin appeal

During 2002, the ICSC Secretariat predicted that the average margin would drop below the 110 mark by the end of the year and presented this information to the 56th Session of the ICSC held in New York in July 2002 with several options for returning the average margin to the “desirable mid-point” of 115 (within the range of 110 and 120). Also of concern was the differential in the margins by individual grade, ranging from 120 for a P-1 to 101.2 for a D-1. The General Assembly had insisted for several years that should any adjustment be made to the average margin, the differential margin among the grades should also be reduced so that the margin would be more or less the same for all grades. Thus, the Commissioners were faced with two objectives: to eliminate, or at least reduce, the differential in the margin among the grades and to bring the average margin to 115. After much debate during which FICSA argued that an across-the-board increase should take precedence over the reduction in the differential of the margin, (i.e. that all grades should receive a 5.7% increase), the Commissioners recommended the following:

Although not the desired outcome, both the Chief Executives Board (CEB, formerly ACC) and the staff federations supported the recommendation. However, after a lengthy debate at the Fifth Committee’s session in November 2002, Member States rejected the level of increase recommended by the ICSC and General Assembly Resolution 57/285, (which was based on the Fifth Committee’s Report, A/57/652) and imposed their own increase, which resulted in an average margin of 112%.

By this Resolution, the General Assembly agreed, in a totally arbitrary fashion, to a differential pay increase, indicated in the Annex to its Resolution, which resulted in an overall margin level for the salaries of Professional and higher categories of staff of 112 instead of 115, which the established methodology required. The reason this was done is clear: to save money at the staff’s expense.

Prior to the 56^th FICSA Council held in Copenhagen in February 2003, the FAO/WFP Association of Professional Staff and the Field Staff Association commissioned Maître Jean-Didier Sicault to prepare a legal assessment of the legal issues involved, the pro and cons regarding the chance of winning an appeal and the way forward should this option be chosen.

In his legal assessment, Maître Sicault advised that, independently of the chances of winning such an appeal, there were a number of tactical and political reasons for pursuing it. He noted that the Tribunals had, in a number of cases of this magnitude, rejected an appeal, but nonetheless had passed down a judgment that confirmed the rights of staff in a way that prevented their further erosion. It was assessed therefore that an appeal in this instance could be of great strategic importance by serving to put in check the brazen disregard by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of its own established methodologies. It was considered of paramount importance that we, the staff, clearly show our determination to oppose arbitrary decisions that erode staff rights and expectations. Thus, the action and the principle are relevant to all staff, regardless of grade or category.

This assessment of the legal aspects was presented and discussed at the 56th FICSA Council in a joint session of the Standing Committee on Professional Salaries and Allowances and the Standing Committee on Legal Questions. The Standing Committee on Legal Questions recommended that it was advisable to move forward with appeals and recommended to the Council to provide CHF 10,000 from the Federation’s Legal Defence Fund in support of the appeals. However, it was clear that the allotment from the Legal Defence Fund would fall short of covering the total cost of the appeal which was estimated to be in the region of Û 40,000 to Û 50,000.

FICSA encouraged all associations / unions, but particularly those from the larger organizations, to identify appellants. In total, 11 individual quasi-identical appeals were prepared (5 from FAO, 2 from IAEA, 2 from WFP and 2 from WMO – ranging from P-2 to D-1). It is regrettable that no appeal was submitted to the UNAT.

The 11 separate appeals were submitted to the Registry of the ILOAT on 7 November
2003. In the latter part of February 2004, the ILOAT Registry forwarded the rebuttals dated 4 February 2004 from the administrations of the four selected organizations to Maître Sicault. In spite of the differences, variations in the rebuttals, it was agreed to prepare a common reply.

The replies (identical except where reference was made to the specific organization) of the appellants were lodged with the ILO Registry on 28 May 2004. As the situation stands now, the organizations have 3 months to respond. In addition to the replies, the staff associations/unions from each of the four organizations also submitted an Amicus Curiae, (again, identical except for reference to the specific staff association/union and respective organization). This unique procedure emphasized the collective nature of this appeal.

Maître Sicault has submitted three separate bills that cover his services to date. Resources are being sought to cover as much of the fee, which represents 177 hours of legal work. Based on past experience this could be provided by staff in the form of oneoff donations. Ideally, we would like to aim for a donation of Û 5 (or alternatively Û 5) from each staff member. FICSA would like to extend this appeal to all staff members including the General Service colleagues because although this appeal involves Professional remuneration, a policy of “checking” the General Assembly from arbitrarily revising its own rules, particularly when they are in violation of its own methodology and procedures, must be upheld. It is very doubtful that a decision by the ILOAT, even a positive one, will result in a windfall in lost salary to Professional staff. Instead, we hope for a “good and just judgement” that will give a clear warning to the General Assembly that arbitrary decisions are not acceptable.

Whether your staff association, council or union is a member of FICSA, CCISUA or is independent, we are all in this together and together we will succeed. Contact your staff representatives or send your contributions directly to FICSA or CCISUA.

FICSA

Attention: Class Action Appeal, Pavillon le Bocage, Office BOC 76, 10 Route de Prègny CH 1211 Genève 10 — Tel. (22) 917 31 50

CCISUA

Palais des Nations, Office C356 United Nations CH 1211 Geneve 10 — Tel: 022 917 34 00