administrative decisions, despite their general application. In this respect, it explicitly held in (see para. 29) that: Pedicelli [I]t is an undisputed principle of international labour law and indeed our own jurisprudence that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment or contract of employment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an falling within the scope of article 2(1) of “administrative decision” the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal and a staff member who is adversely affected is entitled to contest that decision. The Appeals Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach in reviewing various types of challenges which involved decisions of general application, seeking to identify the exact nature of the challenge being brought. It evaluated, on a case by case basis, whether staff members were effectively challenging the legality of a decision taken by a regulatory body such as the General Assembly or the ICSC (see, e.g., 2015-UNAT-526; 2017-UNAT-750 and Tintukasiri et al. Kagizi et al. 2015-UNAT-563), or whether the staff members asserted a different cause of Reid action stemming from a violation of their individual terms and conditions of employment as a result of the implementation of the regulatory measure in their individual cases (see, e.g., and For instance, in Ovcharenko et al. Pedicelli). the Appeals Tribunal stressed that the substantive argument put forward Pedicelli, by the Applicant was that the implementation of the new seven-level salary scale promulgated by the ICSC her contractual rights under her permanent “affected 30). By contrast, it emphasised in that Reid Reid appointment” (see para. “Mr. entered into his contract of employment against the background of the changed landscape for employees on temporary contracts brought about by the General Assembly resolutions in 2008, 2009 and (see para. 36). 2010” The distinction between regulatory decisions and their implementation is perhaps best illustrated in In this judgment, the Appeals Tribunal Tintukasiri et al.. found that applications against the Secretary-General’s decisions to adopt revised salary scales for the General Service and National Officer categories of staff in Bangkok, based on the results of a salary survey, were not reviewable administrative decisions as they were not of individual application. However, the Appeals Tribunal opened the possibility for the concerned staff members to
administrative decisions, despite their general application. In this respect, it explicitly held in Pedicelli (see para. 29) that: [I]t is an undisputed principle of international labour law and indeed our own jurisprudence that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment or contract of employment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an “administrative decision” falling within the scope of article 2(1) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal and a staff member who is adversely affected is entitled to contest that decision. The Appeals Tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach in reviewing various types of challenges which involved decisions of general application, seeking to identify the exact nature of the challenge being brought. It evaluated, on a case by case basis, whether staff members were effectively challenging the legality of a decision taken by a regulatory body such as the General Assembly or the ICSC (see, e.g., Tintukasiri et al. 2015-UNAT-526; Kagizi et al. 2017-UNAT-750 and Reid 2015-UNAT-563), or whether the staff members asserted a different cause of action stemming from a violation of their individual terms and conditions of employment as a result of the implementation of the regulatory measure in their individual cases (see, e.g., Ovcharenko et al. and Pedicelli). For instance, in Pedicelli, the Appeals Tribunal stressed that the substantive argument put forward by the Applicant was that the implementation of the new seven-level salary scale promulgated by the ICSC “affected her contractual rights under her permanent appointment” (see para. 30). By contrast, it emphasised in Reid that “Mr. Reid entered into his contract of employment against the background of the changed landscape for employees on temporary contracts brought about by the General Assembly resolutions in 2008, 2009 and 2010” (see para. 36). The distinction between regulatory decisions and their implementation is perhaps best illustrated in Tintukasiri et al.. In this judgment, the Appeals Tribunal found that applications against the Secretary-General’s decisions to adopt revised salary scales for the General Service and National Officer categories of staff in Bangkok, based on the results of a salary survey, were not reviewable administrative decisions as they were not of individual application. However, the Appeals Tribunal opened the possibility for the concerned staff members to