## Administrative Tribunal decision (Mr. “R”, Director of the Joint Africa Institute)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal decision (Mr. “R”, Director of the Joint Africa Institute)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2002-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2002-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2002-1.pdf.json)

---

### Meeting, jurisdiction, and procedural chronology
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on March 4 and 5, 2002, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges.
- The Tribunal is empowered by its Statute to consider challenges to “regulatory decisions” of the Fund; Article II defines an “administrative act” to include any individual or regulatory decision taken in the administration of the staff of the Fund.
- Key procedural dates:
  - June 25, 2001: Mr. “R” filed an Application with the Administrative Tribunal.
  - June 26, 2001: Application transmitted to Respondent.
  - June 29, 2001: Registrar issued a Summary of the Application within the Fund pursuant to Rule XIV, para. 4.
  - August 10, 2001: Respondent filed its Answer.
  - September 7, 2001: Applicant submitted his Reply.
  - October 15, 2001: Fund’s Rejoinder filed.
  - The Tribunal decided not to hold oral proceedings.

### Subject of the dispute and relief sought
- Applicant: Mr. “R”, Director of the Joint Africa Institute (JAI), Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.
- Core challenge: Applicant contests Fund management’s October 2, 2000 decision which:
  - denied his requests, on an exceptional basis, for payment of an overseas assignment allowance; and
  - denied an increased housing allowance commensurate with that afforded to the Resident Representative in Abidjan.
- Relief sought:
  - award of these benefits retroactive to his appointment as Director of the JAI.

### Factual background (employment, JAI context, pre-appointment exchanges, interim relief)
- Employment history and JAI structure:
  - Mr. “R” has been a staff member of the Fund since 1981.
  - He was serving as a Fund Senior Resident Representative in Dakar, Senegal when on July 19, 1999 he was appointed Director of the JAI.
  - JAI is a joint undertaking of the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank; Director rotates among these organizations every three years, each organization responsible for compensation and benefits of its appointee.
  - Mr. “R” is the first Director of the JAI.
- Pre-appointment representations and exchanges:
  - July 16, 1999: Mr. “R” reports a Deputy Managing Director informed him he “…should receive the same benefits as the resident representative posted in Abidjan did…”
  - July 19, 1999: On appointment, Mr. “R” requested to “keep receiving the benefits attached to the Resident Representative position.”
  - August 13, 1999: Director of Human Resources sought exceptional approval to pay a housing allowance outside approved housing allowance for staff assigned to overseas Offices, noting Resident Representative benefits are “substantially more generous.”
  - August 20, 1999: Mr. “R” warned absence of increased benefits could make it “very difficult or even impossible” to take up the JAI Director position.
- Interim provisional relief:
  - August 24, 1999: Human Resources granted a hardship allowance to Mr. “R” on a provisional, and exceptional, basis with terms including:
    - review of allowances for overseas offices in the context of resident representative allowances; focus on housing allowance, security arrangements, and payment of hardship allowances; review expected to be completed in about two months;
    - pending review, Mr. “R” would receive the hardship allowance applicable for the resident representatives in Abidjan (requiring an exception approved by the First Deputy Managing Director);
    - if review resulted in a net increase, Mr. “R” would receive any adjustment retroactively to the date he took up his appointment in Abidjan; in the case of housing, this would not exceed the actual amount of his housing costs for the period covered by the retroactivity.
  - September 20, 1999: Mr. “R” took up his duties as JAI Director.

### Policy review and final management decision
- Human Resources completed an extensive review of Resident Representative benefits and compared them with benefits for overseas Offices, addressing equity concerns arising from co-existence of an overseas office and a resident representative post in the same country.
- February 18, 2000 (Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives, pp. 41-42) observed that equity considerations “would suggest that all hardship-related benefits provided to resident representatives should also be extended to staff of overseas offices located in the same countries....”
- September 2, 2000: Fund management approved application of the hardship allowance to overseas Offices on the same basis as for Resident Representatives.
- October 2, 2000: Chief of the Staff Benefits Division informed Mr. “R” that the First Deputy Managing Director’s decision:
  - made permanent (and retroactive to his appointment as JAI Director) the provisional grant of a hardship allowance to Mr. “R”; and
  - denied Mr. “R”’s requests for (a) an overseas assignment allowance, and (b) an increased housing allowance — the denial of these two requests is the subject of Applicant’s challenge before the Administrative Tribunal.

### Channels of administrative review
- Staff Benefits Division advised that because the decision was that of Fund management, Mr. “R” was not required to invoke administrative review procedures before contesting the decision in the Fund’s Grievance Committee.
- November 13, 2000: Mr. “R” submitted his Grievance.
- May 29, 2001: Grievance Committee recommended no jurisdiction because complaint challenged Fund policy rather than consistency of application; under GAO No. 31 the Committee’s jurisdiction is limited to inconsistent application complaints.
- June 25, 2001: Mr. “R” filed his Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Applicant’s principal contentions
- Management’s October 2, 2000 decision upholds discriminatory treatment of an Office Director vis-à-vis a Resident Representative posted in the same city.
- Co-posting created an exceptional circumstance requiring exceptional treatment; Applicant entitled on an exceptional basis to the same benefits as the Resident Representative.
- Human Resources recognized equity concerns (“at the very least” hardship-related benefits should be extended) but those concerns have not been fully addressed through the hardship allowance.
- The hardship allowance does not compensate the risks and disadvantages attached to expatriation to developing countries, notably Côte d’Ivoire with “serious dangers resulting from violent unrest.”
- The role, responsibilities, and representation duties of the JAI Director are not inferior to or less risk-oriented than those of the Resident Representative in Abidjan.
- The large financial disparity in compensation between the Office Director and Resident Representative in Abidjan cannot be justified for two professional economist staff members working in the same conditions.
- Relief sought:
  - retroactive to his appointment as JAI Director, the same overseas assignment allowance as received by the Resident Representative in Abidjan; and
  - an increased housing allowance, for the past to cover actual housing costs incurred, and in future to allow Applicant to live in Abidjan with the same comfort and security as the Resident Representative.

### Respondent’s principal contentions
- Overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives are not alike; reasonable distinctions in benefits between staff categories do not violate equality of treatment.
- Applicant’s position is not equal to a Resident Representative in functions, responsibility or standing; different recruitment needs apply to the two positions.
- Coincidence of location should not be the predominant factor in designing Office Directors’ benefits.
- The manner and extent to which factors are weighed for benefits purposes is a business decision within the Fund’s discretion; the Fund appropriately considered that the Director of JAI would be posted in the same city as a Resident Representative.
- For the Tribunal to substitute its judgment for that of the Fund in formulating employee benefits policy, the Tribunal would have to find that the Fund had no legitimate reason to provide different benefits packages to Office Directors and Resident Representatives.

### Benefits structure, specific allowances, and exact formulae preserved
- The Fund maintains seven “overseas” offices: the Office in Europe (Paris), the Office in Geneva, the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo), the Fund’s Office at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, and the three overseas training offices under the IMF Institute: the Joint Vienna Institute, the Singapore Training Institute, and the JAI. Respondent asserts all Office Directors receive the same benefits package.
- The Fund deploys 88 Resident Representatives at different locations throughout the developing world; Resident Representatives receive a different benefits package than overseas Office Directors.
- Respondent’s benefits review characterized Resident Representative benefits as “substantially more generous” than those afforded to overseas Office Directors (Letter from Director of Human Resources to First Deputy Managing Director, August 13, 1999; “Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives,” February 18, 2000, p. 25).
- Applicant’s calculation of the difference in his case equals US$114,000 per annum; Respondent has not contested this calculation.
- The two benefits in dispute are the overseas assignment allowance and the housing allowance.
- Overseas assignment allowance:
  - available solely under the Resident Representative program and is calculated at 30 percent of salary (capped at the mid-point of the B-1 salary range).
  - For assignments beginning on or after February 15, 2001, the allowance was reduced to 20 percent of salary. (Fund’s Intranet, “Benefits and Allowances for Resident Representatives.”)
- Housing:
  - Resident Representative is provided furnished housing in the city of assignment;
  - overseas Office Directors receive a housing allowance that provides for the difference in housing costs between the duty station and Washington, D.C., and for the shipment of household items.
- Fund internal statements preserved:
  - Vacancy announcement for the JAI Director includes representational responsibilities: “represent the JAI in its dealings with third parties,” “maintain contacts and coordinate the work of the JAI with the authorities,” “deliver lectures,” and “travel to countries in the region.”
  - Funds’ Intranet, “Benefits and Allowances for Staff Transferring to Overseas Offices”: Director eligible to receive “enhanced benefits in terms of shipment and housing allowance. The housing allowance will be paid at the family rate in all cases. The shipping entitlement will be based on a family size consisting of a spouse and three children over the age of four, regardless of whether the staff member is single, or has fewer dependents.”
  - Memorandum of September 1, 1998 from Human Resources: “A single director should receive the higher housing allowance and be permitted to receive a larger shipping entitlement, equivalent to that of a married staff member, to help meet the representation requirements of the position.”

### Legal standards, standards of review, and precedents applied
- Article III of the Statute requires application of the internal law of the Fund, “... including generally recognized principles of international administrative law concerning judicial review of administrative acts.”
- The rule of nondiscrimination imposes a substantive limit on discretionary authority in policy-making and administrative functions.
- Discretionary managerial decisions can be overturned only if shown to be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on an error of law or fact, or carried out in violation of fair and reasonable procedures.
- Standards and precedents drawn upon:
  - de Merode (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981)): changes must be based on proper consideration of relevant facts, reasonably related to their objective, made in good faith, not prompted by improper motives, and not discriminate in an unjustifiable manner.
  - D’Aoust (IMFAT Judgment No. 1996-1): Fund may reasonably favor economists where grounded in mission; internal practice need not be published to be reviewable as an individual decision.
  - Mould (WBAT Decision No. 210 (1999)): differential treatment not necessarily discriminatory where a “rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification” exists.
  - ILOAT (In re Vollering, ILOAT Judgment No. 1194 (1992)): “... for there to be a breach of equal treatment there must be different treatment of staff members who are in the same position in fact and in law.”
  - De Armas (AsDBAT Decision No. 39 (1998)): expatriate benefits must be both “reasonably related” to and “proportionate” to the disadvantages of expatriation.

### Tribunal’s analytical approach and applied tests
- The Tribunal framed the key questions:
  1. Has Respondent abused its discretion by maintaining differing benefits policies for overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives with respect to the overseas assignment allowance and housing allowance?
  2. Assuming no abuse in maintaining differing policies, did Respondent abuse its discretion in declining to grant Applicant an exception with respect to those allowances?
- The Tribunal limited the complaint to the second question after Applicant withdrew any challenge to the regulation itself.
- Standards to be applied included:
  - Whether Respondent’s proffered reasons are supported by evidence and “...could ... have been taken on the basis of facts accurately gathered and properly weighed.” (Lindsey, para.12.)
  - Whether there is a “... rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification.” (Mould, para. 26.)
  - If De Armas applied, whether differences are both reasonably related and proportionate to greater disadvantages faced by one category.
- Tribunal will examine Respondent’s stated reasons: job functions, pressures inherent in Resident Representative role, recruitment needs, representational duties, and security concerns.

### Evidence, recruitment considerations, and distinctions in responsibilities
- Respondent’s asserted justifications include:
  - Resident Representatives face pressures inherent to the position given responsibilities to the Fund’s core mission, close working relationships with high government officials, highly sensitive tasks, and security risks associated with high profile.
  - Housing differences justified by representation requirements, recruitment difficulty, and enhanced security necessitated by high profile; Fund selects and outfits Resident Representative housing and limits shipment entitlements.
- Recruitment challenges supported by the record and attributed to:
  1. Number of positions to be filled and re-filled every 2- 3 years.
  2. Perception among some staff that Resident Representative assignments are less desirable than headquarters positions, possibly due to relatively difficult living conditions, medical facilities, and security levels in many Resident Representative locations; and perception (strongly disputed by Fund) that Resident Representative assignments may adversely affect career advancement.
- Noted distinctions and factual considerations:
  - Resident Representative post akin to an ambassador; representational responsibilities broad and constant.
  - Office Directors—especially Directors of the IMF Institutes—have less prominent representational responsibilities.
  - Job grade is not necessarily higher for Resident Representatives than overseas Office Directors; Fund study hypothetically compared A14 for a Resident Representative vs. B4 for an Office Director.
  - Mr. “R” was promoted from grade B2 to B3 when he moved from Senior Resident Representative in Senegal to Director of the JAI.
  - Applicant emphasized security risks in Côte d’Ivoire affect any staff member posted there.

### Tribunal’s findings, reasoning, and disposition
- The Fund’s October 2, 2000 decision not to grant an exception to Applicant was an individual decision that effectively upheld the regulatory decision maintaining differing benefits packages for overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives.
- Management decisions about making exceptions to valid policy are entitled to a high degree of deference.
- The distinction in benefits was found to be:
  - rational,
  - related to objective factors,
  - untainted by animus against the Applicant,
  - reasonably related to the purposes of the benefits, including the recruitment incentive provided by the overseas assignment allowance.
- The Tribunal assessed that although granting an exception in Applicant’s case “would have been reasonable,” Fund’s refusal to grant an exception to avoid awarding one Office Director perquisites not accorded to other Office Directors was itself reasonable and within managerial discretion.
- Conclusion and decision:
  - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that the Application of Mr. “R” is denied.
- Signatories:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., March 5, 2002

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Decision denying the Application of Mr. “R” (March 5, 2002).*

### Introduction

### Introduction

### Meeting and Jurisdiction
- On March 4 and 5, 2002, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, met to adjudge the case brought against the International Monetary Fund by Mr. “R”, a staff member of the Fund.
- The Tribunal is empowered by its Statute to consider challenges to “regulatory decisions” of the Fund. Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute defines an “administrative act” to include any individual or regulatory decision taken in the administration of the staff of the Fund.

### Subject of the Dispute
- Applicant: Mr. “R”, Director of the Joint Africa Institute (JAI), located in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.
- Core challenge: Applicant contests the October 2, 2000 decision of Fund management which denied his requests, on an exceptional basis, for:
  - payment of an overseas assignment allowance; and
  - an increased housing allowance commensurate with that afforded to the Resident Representative in Abidjan.
- Relief sought: award of these benefits retroactive to his appointment as Director of the JAI.

### Procedural History
- June 25, 2001: Mr. “R” filed an Application with the Administrative Tribunal.
- June 26, 2001: The Application was transmitted to Respondent.
- June 29, 2001: Pursuant to Rule XIV, para. 4 of the Rules of Procedure, the Registrar issued a Summary of the Application within the Fund.
- August 10, 2001: Respondent filed its Answer.
- September 7, 2001: Applicant submitted his Reply.
- October 15, 2001: The Fund’s Rejoinder was filed.
- The Tribunal decided not to hold oral proceedings as they were not necessary for disposition of the case.

### Factual Background
- Employment history:
  - Mr. “R” has been a staff member of the Fund since 1981.
  - He was serving as a Fund Senior Resident Representative in Dakar, Senegal when on July 19, 1999 he was appointed to the post of Director of the Joint Africa Institute.
- Joint Africa Institute (JAI) context:
  - JAI is a joint undertaking of the IMF, World Bank and African Development Bank.
  - Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the Director of the JAI is to rotate among these organizations every three years, each organization being responsible for the compensation and benefits of its respective appointee.
  - Mr. “R” is the first Director of the JAI.
- Pre-appointment representations and exchanges:
  - July 16, 1999: Mr. “R” reports that a Deputy Managing Director informed him he “...should receive the same benefits as the resident representative posted in Abidjan did...”
  - July 19, 1999: On appointment, Mr. “R” sent an e-mail to the Fund’s Staff Benefits Division requesting to “keep receiving the benefits attached to the Resident Representative position.”
  - August 13, 1999: Director of Human Resources sought approval, on an exceptional basis, to pay a housing allowance outside approved housing allowance for staff assigned to overseas Offices, noting Resident Representative benefits are “substantially more generous.”
  - August 20, 1999: Mr. “R” raised concerns that absence of increased benefits could make it “very difficult or even impossible” to take up the JAI Director position.
- Interim provisional relief:
  - August 24, 1999: Human Resources informed Mr. “R” a general review of benefits for overseas staff was underway and, pending outcome, a hardship allowance was granted to Mr. “R” on a provisional, and exceptional, basis with the following terms:
    - The policy on allowances for overseas offices would be reviewed in the context of the review of resident representative allowances; review to focus on housing allowance, security arrangements, and payment of hardship allowances, and was expected to be completed in about two months.
    - Pending the review, Mr. “R” would receive the hardship allowance applicable for the resident representatives in Abidjan (requiring an exception approved by the First Deputy Managing Director).
    - If the review resulted in a net increase in financial and housing allowances for overseas offices, Mr. “R” would receive any adjustment retroactively to the date he took up his appointment in Abidjan; in the case of housing, this would not exceed the actual amount of his housing costs for the period covered by the retroactivity.
  - September 20, 1999: Mr. “R” took up his duties as JAI Director.
- Policy review and final management decision:
  - Human Resources completed an extensive review of Resident Representative benefits and compared them with benefits for overseas Offices, addressing equity concerns raised by the co-existence of an overseas office and a resident representative post in the same country.
  - February 18, 2000 (Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives, pp. 41-42) noted that “...with the establishment of the Joint Africa Institute in Côte d’Ivoire in 1999, for the first time in its history the Fund is operating both an overseas office and a resident representative post in the same country... equity considerations would suggest that all hardship-related benefits provided to resident representatives should also be extended to staff of overseas offices located in the same countries....”
  - September 2, 2000: Fund management approved the application of the hardship allowance to overseas Offices on the same basis as for Resident Representatives.
  - October 2, 2000: Chief of the Staff Benefits Division informed Mr. “R” that the First Deputy Managing Director’s decision:
    - made permanent (and retroactive to his appointment as JAI Director) the provisional grant of a hardship allowance to Mr. “R”; and
    - denied Mr. “R”’s requests for (a) an overseas assignment allowance, and (b) an increased housing allowance — the denial of these two requests is the subject of Applicant’s challenge before the Administrative Tribunal.

### Channels of Administrative Review
- The Staff Benefits Division advised that because the decision was that of Fund management, Mr. “R” was not required to invoke administrative review procedures prior to contesting the decision in the Fund’s Grievance Committee.
- November 13, 2000: Mr. “R” submitted his Grievance.
- May 29, 2001: The Grievance Committee issued its Recommendation and Report determining it did not have jurisdiction because Mr. “R”’s complaint represented a challenge to a Fund policy rather than to the consistency of its application in an individual case. The Grievance Committee’s jurisdiction under GAO No. 31 is limited to complaints contending inconsistent application of Fund regulations governing personnel and does not extend to challenges to staff regulations as approved by the Managing Director.
- June 25, 2001: Mr. “R” filed his Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Applicant’s Principal Contentions
- Respondent’s October 2, 2000 decision upholds discriminatory treatment of an Office Director vis-à-vis a Resident Representative posted in the same city.
- The co-posting of an overseas Office Director and a Resident Representative in the same overseas city created an exceptional circumstance requiring exceptional treatment; Applicant is entitled on an exceptional basis to the same benefits accorded to the Resident Representative.
- Human Resources recognized equity concerns (“at the very least” hardship-related benefits should be extended) but those concerns have not been fully addressed through the hardship allowance.
- The hardship allowance does not compensate the risks and disadvantages attached to expatriation to developing countries, notably Côte d’Ivoire with “serious dangers resulting from violent unrest.”
- The role, responsibilities, and representation duties of the JAI Director are not inferior to or less risk-oriented than those of the Resident Representative in Abidjan.
- The large financial disparity in compensation between the Office Director and Resident Representative in Abidjan cannot be justified for two professional economist staff members working in the same conditions.
- Relief sought:
  - retroactive to his appointment as JAI Director, the same overseas assignment allowance as received by the Resident Representative in Abidjan; and
  - an increased housing allowance, for the past to cover actual housing costs incurred, and in future to allow Applicant to live in Abidjan with the same comfort and security as the Resident Representative.

### Respondent’s Principal Contentions
- Overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives are not alike; reasonable distinctions in benefits between staff categories do not violate equality of treatment. The Fund’s benefits policy differentiates on the basis of sound business reasons.
- Applicant’s position is not equal to a Resident Representative in functions, responsibility or standing; different recruitment needs apply to the two positions. Coincidence of location should not be the predominant factor in designing Office Directors’ benefits.
- The manner and extent to which particular factors are weighed for benefits purposes is a business decision within the discretion of the Fund. The Fund appropriately considered that the Director of JAI would be posted in the same city as a Resident Representative.
- For the Tribunal to substitute its judgment for that of the Fund in formulating employee benefits policy, the Tribunal would have to find that the Fund had no legitimate reason to provide different benefits packages to Office Directors and Resident Representatives.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Introduction (case involving Mr. “R”, Director of the Joint Africa Institute).*

### 5. The Fund’s decision not to grant an exception in Applicant’s case was not an

### 5. The Fund’s decision not to grant an exception in Applicant’s case was not an

### Key holdings and disposition
- The Fund’s decision not to grant an exception to Applicant was an individual decision taken on October 2, 2000, whose content effectively upheld the regulatory decision maintaining differing benefits packages for overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives.
- Management decisions about making exceptions to valid policy are entitled to a high degree of deference.
- Applicant is not entitled to exceptional treatment that would create a serious inequity between himself and other Office Directors.

*Source: Administrative Tribunal (judgment text reproduced in the IMF document).*

### Regulatory decision versus individual decision — jurisdictional and analytical framing
- Article II of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal defines “administrative act” to include any individual or regulatory decision taken in administration of staff, and defines “regulatory decision” as any rule concerning terms and conditions of staff employment (including the General Administrative Orders and the Staff Retirement Plan), excluding Board of Governors resolutions.
- The Tribunal may review regulatory decisions either directly or in the context of a review of an individual decision taken pursuant to such regulatory decisions.
- In this case the “individual decision” (management’s denial of Applicant’s exception request on October 2, 2000) and the “regulatory decision” (the benefits classification scheme) are analytically inseparable; therefore both must be considered together.
- If a pure challenge to a regulatory decision were brought separately, timeliness rules would apply (Article VI para. 2): an application challenging a regulatory decision is inadmissible if filed more than three months after the announcement or effective date of the decision; however, illegality of a regulatory decision may be asserted at any time in support of an admissible application challenging an individual decision taken pursuant to that regulatory decision.

### Structure and scope of benefits differentiation
- The Fund maintains seven “overseas” offices (the Office in Europe (Paris), the Office in Geneva, the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo), the Fund’s Office at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, and the three overseas training offices under the IMF Institute: the Joint Vienna Institute, the Singapore Training Institute, and the JAI). Respondent asserts all Office Directors receive the same benefits package.
- The Fund deploys 88 Resident Representatives at different locations throughout the developing world; Resident Representatives receive a different benefits package than overseas Office Directors.
- Respondent’s benefits review characterizes Resident Representative benefits as “substantially more generous” than those afforded to overseas Office Directors (Letter from Director of Human Resources to First Deputy Managing Director, August 13, 1999; “Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives,” February 18, 2000, p. 25).
- Applicant’s calculation of the difference in his case equals US$114,000 per annum; Respondent has not contested this calculation.

### Specific allowances in dispute and formulae preserved
- The two benefits in dispute are the overseas assignment allowance and the housing allowance.
- The overseas assignment allowance is available solely under the Resident Representative program and is calculated at 30 percent of salary (capped at the mid-point of the B-1 salary range).
- For assignments beginning on or after February 15, 2001, the allowance was reduced to 20 percent of salary. (Fund’s Intranet, “Benefits and Allowances for Resident Representatives.”)
- Housing: a Resident Representative is provided furnished housing in the city of assignment; overseas Office Directors receive a housing allowance that provides for the difference in housing costs between the duty station and Washington, D.C., and for the shipment of household items.

### Principle of nondiscrimination and standard of review
- Article III of the Statute requires application of the internal law of the Fund, “... including generally recognized principles of international administrative law concerning judicial review of administrative acts.”
- The rule of nondiscrimination imposes a substantive limit on discretionary authority in policy-making and administrative functions of an international organization.
- Discretionary managerial decisions can be overturned only if shown to be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on an error of law or fact, or carried out in violation of fair and reasonable procedures.
- The Tribunal must balance deference to managerial discretion with assurance that discretion was exercised without unjustified discrimination.

### Precedents and illustrative standards from international administrative tribunals
- de Merode (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981)): changes must be based on proper consideration of relevant facts, reasonably related to their objective, made in good faith, not prompted by improper motives, and not discriminate in an unjustifiable manner.
- The Tribunal may not substitute its assessment for managerial judgments involving technical criteria such as grading of posts or evaluations of professional qualifications, intervening only where assessments were tainted by irregularity.
- D’Aoust (IMFAT Judgment No. 1996-1): the Fund may reasonably favor economists in determining terms of employment where grounded in the Fund’s mission; an internal practice need not be published to be subject to review as an individual decision.
- World Bank Administrative Tribunal (Mould, WBAT Decision No. 210 (1999)): differential treatment is not necessarily discriminatory where a “rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification” exists.

### Analytical conclusion applied to Applicant’s challenge
- Because management’s refusal to grant an exception functionally upholds the regulatory decision assigning differing benefits, the Tribunal must review both the individual denial and the underlying classification scheme together.
- The Tribunal applies a standard that respects managerial discretion but will set aside decisions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on error, or procedurally unfair; the applicant’s claim must be evaluated against that standard and relevant comparator jurisprudence.

*Source: Administrative Tribunal judgment text reproduced in the IMF document.*

### 39.      The International Labour Organisation Administrative Tribunal has phrased the

### The International Labour Organisation Administrative Tribunal has phrased the principle of nondiscrimination as follows

### ILOAT nondiscrimination principle and standards of review
- ILOAT statement: “... for there to be a breach of equal treatment there must be different treatment of staff members who are in the same position in fact and in law.” (In re Vollering, ILOAT Judgment No. 1194 (1992), para. 2.)
- The decision-maker may only take into account differences in circumstance that the decision-maker “is free to take into account.” (In re Vollering, para. 2.)
- De Armas (AsDBAT) standard: expatriate benefits must be both “reasonably related” to and “proportionate” to the disadvantages of expatriation (De Armas, paras. 33-34). This subjects benefits distinctions to a relatively high degree of scrutiny.
- Standards the Tribunal will apply in the present case:
  - Whether Respondent’s proffered reasons are supported by evidence and whether the decision “...could ... have been taken on the basis of facts accurately gathered and properly weighed.” (Lindsey, para.12.)
  - Whether there is a “... rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification.” (Mould, para. 26.)
  - If De Armas is applied, whether differences are both reasonably related and proportionate to greater disadvantages faced by one category.

### Key precedents and their holdings
- In re Vollering, ILOAT Judgment No. 1194 (1992)
  - Upheld as nondiscriminatory EPO President’s decision to grant special leave only to German employees at The Hague on the date of German reunification.
  - Rationale: German staff were “not in the same position of fact as staff of other nationalities” because reunification and 3 October as Germany’s national day made Germans uniquely affected. (Vollering, at para. 2.)
- In re Tarrab, ILOAT Judgment No. 498 (1982)
  - Upheld increase in family allowances for General Service (G) staff but not Professional (P) category staff.
  - Underlying scheme distinguished locally recruited staff (G) from non-locally recruited staff (P): G officials compared to best prevailing local rates (Switzerland); P officials compared to best-paid national civil service. (Tarrab, para. C.)
  - Rationale: incentive to recruitment for G staff who are recruited largely in Switzerland; alignment with Swiss pay scales is legitimate. (Tarrab, para. 1.)
- De Armas et al. v. Asian Development Bank, AsDBAT Decision No. 39 (1998)
  - Recast nationality claim as expatriate vs. non-expatriate distinction.
  - Established examination whether expatriate benefits are reasonable compensation and proportionate to expatriation disadvantages (paras. 33-34).
  - Force majeure protection program (insurance covering loss/damage to personal property) was deemed discriminatory where only expatriates were covered; Tribunal found local and expatriate staff to be similarly circumstanced for that benefit and held force majeure protection should have been afforded to local staff as well. (De Armas, paras. 85, 87-88.)
  - Severance pay distinction was upheld where Tribunal accepted Bank’s rationale that severance pay facilitates re-settlement and that staff who resettle outside the duty station incur greater expense; a smaller allowance for staff remaining in duty station was not discriminatory. (De Armas, para. 92.)

### Application to present dispute: differences in overseas assignment allowance and housing allowance
- Framed question: Has Respondent abused its discretion by maintaining differing benefits policies applicable to two categories of Fund staff posted abroad, overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives, with respect to a) overseas assignment allowance, and b) housing allowance?
- Principles extracted for application:
  - Respondent’s reasons must be supported by evidence.
  - Tribunal to assess rational nexus between classification and objectives.
  - If applying De Armas, Tribunal to assess reasonable relation and proportionality of differences to disadvantages faced by Resident Representatives.

### Respondent’s proffered justifications for differential benefits
- Reasons offered include differences in:
  - Job functions.
  - Intangible “pressures” inherent in the Resident Representative role.
  - Recruitment needs.
  - Representational duties.
  - Security concerns.

- Overseas assignment allowance (Respondent’s assertion):
  - “The overseas assignment allowance for Resident Representatives, which is considered essential to recruitment of qualified candidates, compensates the Resident Representative for the pressures that are inherent to the position, given the importance of their responsibilities to the core mission of the Fund, their close working relationship with high government officials, the highly sensitive nature of their tasks and the security risks associated with their high profile.”

- Housing allocation (Respondent’s explanation, emphasis supplied):
  - Office Directors:
    - Receive a housing allowance to compensate for the difference between the cost of housing in Washington and their duty station.
    - Choose their own housing.
    - Receive a full shipment allowance to move household goods to the duty station or store them in Washington as they choose.
  - Resident Representatives:
    - Have a limited entitlement to ship personal effects to the duty station.
    - Receive furnished housing selected by the Fund, at no cost to themselves except that they must meet the first $2,400 of maintenance expenses annually.
    - Fund considered paying a housing allowance in lieu of Fund-provided housing but determined existing housing benefit was justified because of the need to entertain officials in the residence, recruitment difficulty, and enhanced security necessitated by high profile; Fund selects and outfits their housing. (Emphasis supplied.)

- Respondent’s overall conclusion:
  - Both benefits “reflect the real and substantial differences in the responsibilities and functions of Resident Representatives, in comparison to Office Directors.”
  - Resident Representatives perform analytical country work, technical assistance, policy advice, close liaison with headquarters on operational work, and diplomatic/representational activities not in Office Directors’ terms of reference.
  - Resident Representatives bear greater responsibility for success or failure of Fund programs in a country and have greater profile and standing within the country and the Fund.

### Evidence and comparisons in the record
- Vacancy announcement for the JAI Director includes representational responsibilities: “represent the JAI in its dealings with third parties,” “maintain contacts and coordinate the work of the JAI with the authorities,” “deliver lectures,” and “travel to countries in the region.” (Vacancy announcement – Director, JAI.)
- Existing benefits policy provides “enhanced” benefits to overseas Office Directors vis-à-vis other overseas Office staff:
  - “... the Director, will be eligible to receive enhanced benefits in terms of shipment and housing allowance. The housing allowance will be paid at the family rate in all cases. The shipping entitlement will be based on a family size consisting of a spouse and three children over the age of four, regardless of whether the staff member is single, or has fewer dependents.” (Funds’ Intranet, “Benefits and Allowances for Staff Transferring to Overseas Offices.”)
- Memorandum of September 1, 1998 from Human Resources to a Deputy Managing Director: “A single director should receive the higher housing allowance and be permitted to receive a larger shipping entitlement, equivalent to that of a married staff member, to help meet the representation requirements of the position.” (Emphasis supplied.)
- Human Resources Department review contrasted program objectives:
  - Resident Representative duties described as analytical country work, technical assistance, policy advice, close liaison with headquarters, and diplomatic/representational activities that “simply do not figure in the terms of reference of most staff in overseas offices.” (“Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives,” February 18, 2000, p. 24.)
- Noted distinctions:
  - Resident Representative post akin to an ambassador accredited to the government of the host state; representational responsibilities broad and constant.
  - Office Directors—especially Directors of the IMF Institutes—have less prominent representational responsibilities.
  - Job grade is not higher for Resident Representatives than overseas Office Directors; hypothetical comparison posited A14 for Resident Representative vs. B4 for Office Director in Fund study (“Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives,” February 18, 2000, Table 12).
  - Mr. “R” was promoted from grade B2 to B3 when he moved from Senior Resident Representative in Senegal to Director of the JAI.

### Factual considerations bearing on rationality and proportionality
- Recruitment challenges for Resident Representative program supported by record and attributed to:
  1. The number of positions to be filled and re-filled every 2- 3 years, which has grown with emergence of new nations.
  2. The perception among some staff that Resident Representative assignments are less desirable than headquarters positions, possibly due to:
     - Relatively difficult living conditions in many Resident Representative locations.
     - Perception (strongly disputed by Fund) that taking up a Resident Representative assignment may have an adverse effect on career advancement.
- Security concerns: Applicant emphasized that conditions in Côte d’Ivoire pose serious security risks faced by any staff member posted there, not only the Resident Representative.

### Tribunal’s analytical approach to present benefits dispute
- The Tribunal will:
  - Examine whether Respondent’s stated reasons (job functions, pressures, recruitment, representational duties, security) are supported by evidence.
  - Assess whether differential treatment is rationally related to the purposes of the overseas assignment allowance and housing allowance.
  - Consider applying De Armas’ proportionality requirement to determine if the disparities are proportionate to greater disadvantages faced by Resident Representatives or justified by other valid distinctions.

*Excerpt from Tribunal judgment materials concerning differential benefits for overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives, drawn from the Fund’s administrative record.*

### 58.      The Fund has sought to address these recruitment challenges both by providing

### j2002-1 - 58.      The Fund has sought to address these recruitment challenges both by providing

### Background and purpose of the overseas assignment allowance
- The Fund sought to address recruitment challenges by providing increased employment benefits beginning in 1993 and by addressing career-advancement concerns. (See Staff Bulletin No. 94/7.)
- Stated objective of the overseas assignment allowance (Fund’s Intranet, “Benefits and Allowances for Resident Representatives.”):
  - “To provide a financial incentive to accepting a field assignment, and to compensate the staff member for unidentified financial and individual costs.”
- Fund study emphasis on location-related undesirability (quotation preserved):
  - “Many RR posts are located in developing countries where living conditions, medical facilities, and security levels may be substandard, unlike conditions prevailing in countries where most offices are located. In recognition of these fundamental differences in their role, responsibilities, and functions, the Fund has traditionally provided as more generous benefits package to resident representatives, both as compensation for working in generally less comfortable surroundings and as a way of providing adequate incentives to attract well-qualified staff to consider undertaking these critical assignments.” (“Resident Representative Program: Review of Benefits and Incentives,” February 18, 2000, pp. 24- 25.) (Emphasis supplied.)
- The policy rests on generalizations about living conditions in locations where “many” Resident Representatives serve versus countries where “most” overseas Office staff serve, raising the question whether differing benefits remain justified in exceptional cases where Office Director and Resident Representative are posted in the same challenging location.

### Issues before the Tribunal
- Two issues for determination (para. 60):
  1. Has Respondent abused its discretion by maintaining differing benefits policies applicable to two categories of Fund staff posted abroad, overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives, with respect to a) overseas assignment allowance, and b) housing allowance?
  2. Assuming that Respondent did not abuse its discretion in maintaining the differing benefits policies for overseas Office Directors and Resident Representatives, did it abuse its discretion in declining to grant Applicant an exception to those policies, with respect to a) overseas assignment allowance, and b) housing allowance?
- Applicant withdrew any challenge to the regulation providing for differing benefits; the complaint was confined to the second question (paras. 61–62).
- Applicant’s factual claim: only he and the Resident Representative among all senior Fund officials were both economists, stationed in the same overseas city, subject to the same hazards and difficulties, both charged with senior managerial and representational functions; he sought an exception on that “unique” basis (para. 61).

### Tribunal’s assessment of Applicant’s position and Fund decision-making
- Tribunal found Applicant’s contentions “far from frivolous,” “natural and understandable,” and noted context:
  - Applicant moved from Resident Representative in Dakar to Office Director of the JAI in Abidjan after encouragement by a then Deputy Managing Director and assurances that benefits of Office Directors would be reviewed (para. 62).
  - Applicant was partially granted the hardship allowance but not the housing allowance or the overseas assignment allowance (para. 62).
- Decision-making process:
  - Fund management gave extended consideration, including rejection of a recommendation by the Director of Human Resources to afford the Applicant the housing allowance (para. 63).
  - The Fund’s decision to withhold the additional benefits was deliberate and within managerial authority (para. 63).
- Tribunal’s characterization of the distinction in benefits:
  - The distinction was found to be rational, related to objective factors, and untainted by animus against the Applicant.
  - Allocation of differing benefits was reasonably related to the purposes of those benefits, in particular the incentive to recruitment of Resident Representatives provided by the overseas assignment allowance (para. 64).

### Standard of review and conclusion on exception request
- Tribunal emphasized limited review of managerial and administrative discretion exercised by Fund management (para. 65).
- Although granting an exception in this case “would have been reasonable,” the Fund’s refusal to grant an exception on the ground of avoiding awarding one Office Director perquisites not accorded to other Office Directors was itself reasonable and within the Fund’s managerial discretion (para. 65).

### Decision
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that:
  - The Application of Mr. “R” is denied.
- Signatories and provenance:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., March 5, 2002

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2002-1.pdf_