Equal pay for equal work (897,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Equal pay for equal work
Total judgments found: 7

• Judgment 4777

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.

  Considerations 7-9

  Extract:

  The complainant concludes that the higher the grade, the higher the remuneration ought to be, so that a promotion should necessarily lead to a significant increase in pay.
  However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that, as the organisation rightly points out in its submissions, the methodology that has been embodied and applied in the United Nations system for decades for determining salaries does not show a linear continuity between the responsibilities and levels of pay at the higher grades in category G and those at the lower grades in category P. Secondly, it is apparent from the submissions and the evidence that to accede to the complainant’s claim for a higher level of remuneration in his grade P.3 post than that resulting from the adjustment already awarded to him on the basis of the remuneration he received at grade G.6 would, on the contrary, amount to a deviation from the principle of equal pay for equal work when compared with other ITU staff members at grade P.3 who did not come from the General Service category.
  In that regard, the Tribunal already recalled, in its Judgment 1196, consideration 19, that it is well known that different salary scales exist for the General Service category and the Professional category, which in itself neither is discriminatory nor constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment, emphasising the following:
  “[A]ccording to consistent precedent the distinction between international and local staff is a fundamental one inherent in the very nature of an international organisation. It is due to the peculiar circumstances in which such organisations work and it is concurred in, with both its advantages and its drawbacks, by anyone who seeks employment with them, be it in one category of staff or in the other. Each category of staff offers career prospects and conditions of recruitment and pay that differ according to its own requirements, and a staff member may not plead breach of equal treatment if treated differently because he belongs to one category rather than to the other.”
  Similarly, in Judgment 498, consideration 1, the Tribunal had made the following remarks in relation to those distinctions:
  “G staff are recruited largely in [the headquarters country] or neighbouring countries. It is therefore only right that [...] their pay [...] should be in line with pay scales in [the headquarters country]. Officials in other categories, however, may come from and be required to serve anywhere in the world. [...] [The organisation] takes as its standard of comparison the best-paid national civil service. Consequently the allegation of unlawful discrimination fails.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1196
  

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general service category; professional category; promotion; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4502

  
  134th Session, 2022
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The complainant also contends that there was a breach of the principle of equal pay for equal work in that other staff members performing similar duties to hers held posts at higher grades. On that point, the Tribunal observes that it is not ordinarily its role to compare a post whose classification is contested to the classification of similar posts in the same organisation in order to ascertain whether the classification decision is lawful (see, for example, Judgments 4000, consideration 9, and [...] 4221, consideration 15).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
  

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work; post classification; unequal treatment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4402

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

  Considerations 7-9

  Extract:

  The import of the complainant’s argument is that any member of staff of an international organisation has an ongoing right, enforceable through internal appeal and ultimately in the Tribunal, to request or even demand at any time a review of salary and classification which must be considered by the organisation and have a decision made on the request.
  
  It is true that the Tribunal has acknowledged in, for example, Judgment 2706, consideration 12, that: “it is the duty of international organisations to abide by the principle of equality and in particular to comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. [...] if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to those requirements in respect of their staff, it is their duty to take remedial steps, whether by way of some general rule or by some specific procedure for the particular case.” Additionally, it has been acknowledged in, for example, Judgment 2931, that the principle of equality feeds into the determination of an appropriate classification.
  
  But the complainant has failed to establish the legal foundation for his contention that the Director HRD was under a legal duty to consider his request […], let alone that he was then duty bound to reclassify the complainant’s position as requested.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 2931
  

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work; post classification;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4316

  
  130th Session, 2020
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Regarding the alleged indirect discrimination against women, who are more likely to work part-time than men, the IAC minority took into consideration the judgment rendered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 6 December 2007 in case C-300/06, to contend that the change introduced by Circular No. 309 had resulted in indirect discrimination. Regardless of other considerations, the case examined by the ECJ is different from the present case. According to ECJ case law, the principle of equal pay also excludes the application of provisions which maintain different treatment between men and women at work as a result of criteria not based on sex where those differences of treatment are not attributable to objective factors wholly unrelated to sex discrimination. In this case, the alleged indirect discrimination against women is not established, as the difference of treatment had been determined by objective factors, involving financial gains and administrative benefits, wholly unrelated to any kind of discrimination.

  Keywords:

  discrimination; discrimination against women; equal pay for equal work; european court of justice (ecj); part-time employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4306

  
  130th Session, 2020
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date which has been set for the retroactive reclassification of her post and the undue delay in the reclassification procedure.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  Noting the complainant’s reliance on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, the Tribunal recalls its case law which states, in consideration 22 of Judgment 2314, for example, that the principle of equality directs equal pay for work of equal value and that an employer is not absolved from the requirement to ensure equal treatment and equal pay for work of equal value merely because an employee has the right to seek reclassification of her or his post.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2314
  

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2314

  
  96th Session, 2004
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 22

  Extract:

  "An employer is not absolved from the requirement to ensure equal treatment and equal pay for work of equal value merely because an employee has the right to seek reclassification of his or her post."

  Keywords:

  equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; official; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2313

  
  96th Session, 2004
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  "It is the duty of international organisations to ensure that they abide by the principle of equality and, particularly, that they comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. And if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to that principle and its requirement of equal remuneration, it is their duty to initiate procedures that do, whether by way of general rule or some specific procedure for the particular case."

  Keywords:

  consequence; equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general principle; organisation; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; safeguard; salary; written rule;