## j2007-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [j2007-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2007-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2007-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2007-1.pdf.json)

---

### Overview of proceedings and core dispute
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund convened January 22, 23 and 24, 2007, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, to adjudge a case brought by five staff members.
- Applicants filed five identical Applications contesting the Executive Board’s April 14, 2006 decision revising the methodology for determining staff salaries and the implementation of that amended system in the 2006 compensation round.
- Applicants sought rescission of the April 14, 2006 decision, a declaration null and void of the April 17, 2006 decision implementing the amended system for 2006, retroactive determination of 2006 compensation on the pre-January 2005 basis, and legal costs.

### Applicants’ challenges (methodology and legal claims)
- Specific methodological challenges:
  - Changes to sector weights in comparator markets (United States and French/German):
    - increase the public sector weight;
    - decrease the private industrial sector weight;
    - maintain private financial sector weight but lower its “pitch”.
  - Adoption of a 3-year review cycle for Grades A9–B2:
    - full comparator assessment every third year;
    - reliance on published U.S. indices for the other two years (with limited exceptions).
  - Vesting the Executive Board with discretion (within constraints) to adjust Fund salaries upward or downward when payline falls within, or outside, the “testing range”.
- Legal claims advanced by Applicants:
  - amendment contrary to the internal law of the Fund and general principles of international administrative law;
  - violation of a fundamental condition of employment—the Fund’s obligation under Article XII, Section 4(d) to maintain an internationally diverse staff of the highest quality;
  - failure to comply with a rules-based compensation system;
  - improper motive to reduce staff compensation;
  - decision arbitrary and an abuse of discretion for lack of proper consideration of relevant facts;
  - asserted present downward adjustment of staff compensation for 2006 and risk of future erosion in international competitiveness.

### Respondent’s position (Executive Board / Managing Director)
- Executive Board’s April 14, 2006 decision described as a proper exercise of discretionary authority aimed at maintaining international competitiveness of Fund salaries while correcting misalignments.
- Key management statements and procedural points:
  - EBAP/06/38 (March 31, 2006) adopted as the basis of the revised system; the Executive Board decision of April 14, 2006 “... supersedes all previous decisions concerning the staff compensation system.”
  - Managing Director statements (March 3, 2006; April 13, 2006; April 14, 2006) emphasized producing “a simpler and more transparent system that links Fund salaries more closely to market levels” and noted the Board’s constrained discretion when the competitiveness margin over non-U.S. markets exceeds 10 percent.
  - Management committed further work to test properties of the chosen index and to explore other published series.

### Revised compensation system — structure and rules (April 14, 2006)
- Review cycle and broad features:
  - A three-year review cycle:
    - Year 1: comparator-based reviews with full comparisons for Grades A9-B2 and A1-A8 and assessment of international competitiveness (for A9–B2);
    - Years 2 and 3: structural adjustments based on an index of U.S. public and private sector salary increases;
    - Annual resources retained for individual, performance-related merit increases.
  - System principles:
    - comparator-based (periodic reviews using designated comparator markets);
    - rules-based (major provisions and procedures clearly defined, while allowing judgment within parameters).
- Comparator-based review for Grades A9–B2 (Year 1) — market definition, sector weights, pitch:
  - Primary comparator market: the United States market, tested against an international market (French and German).
  - Each national comparator market includes three sectors with weights:
    - Public sector: 50 percent;
    - Private financial sector: 40 percent;
    - Private industrial sector: 10 percent.
  - Market pitch (level-setting rules):
    - (i) the 75th percentile of the U.S. industrial sector and of each sector in the international (French and German) comparator market;
    - (ii) a level 10 percent above the mean of the U.S. public sector;
    - (iii) on a sliding scale between the 75th percentile and the mean of the U.S. financial sector (for the U.S. financial sector).
- International competitiveness and adjustment mechanics:
  - Targeted margin for international competitiveness: a range that is 10–20 percent above the designated level of salaries in the international comparator market.
  - If alignment with the U.S. market produces a Fund payline (staff-weighted average) outside the 10–20 percent range:
    - (i) upward adjustment permitted if below the 10 percent floor;
    - (ii) downward adjustment permitted if above the 20 percent ceiling;
    - downward adjustment that would place the payline within the target range cannot result in a staff-weighted average A9–B2 payline less than the higher of:
      - (i) 10 percent above the level indicated by the international comparator market, and
      - (ii) a level resulting from a staff-weighted average percentage structural increase at least equal to the percentage increase in the Washington metropolitan area Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending in January.
  - CPI floor application note: the CPI floor would apply only where a downward adjustment indicated by alignment with the U.S. market falls within the 10–20 target range and a downward adjustment is sought; it would not apply when the downward adjustment still places the payline above the 20 percent ceiling or when no downward adjustment is sought after alignment places the payline within the target range.

### Indexation-based reviews for Grades A9–B2 (Years 2 and 3)
- Years 2 and 3 adjustments are uniform across grades and determined by an index incorporating annual compensation increases in the U.S. public and private sectors.
- International test market generally not taken into account for indexation years.
- Management may propose an upward adjustment to the index-indicated amount if:
  - compelling evidence shows the index movements are unrepresentative in a material way of general U.S. comparator salary trends;
  - changes in U.S. tax policy likely to create significant increases in net salaries at the Fund by the next comparator review;
  - movements in the euro-dollar exchange rate create significant recruitment competitiveness problems warranting remedial action before the next comparator review.

### April 17, 2006 implementation for the 2006 compensation round
- Executive Board adopted implementation decision EBAP/06/44 on April 17, 2006 giving effect to the revised compensation system for 2006.
- Effect in 2006 summarized by Respondent:
  - “a steepening of the Fund’s payline and an overall reduction in the A9-B2 salary structure of 0.7 percent on average, with the midpoints at Grades A9-A13 reduced and those for Grades A14–B2 increased.”
- Transitional arrangements for 2006 ensured:
  - no staff member would experience an actual reduction in salary for 2006;
  - staff members could receive performance-based salary adjustments in 2006;
  - avoidance of salary reductions for staff whose existing salaries were above new and lower maxima; and
  - all staff would have the possibility of receiving a salary increase in 2006.

### Empirical inputs and contested 2006 data
- The U.S.-indicated payline for Grades A9–B2 in 2006 established an average margin of 8 percent above the French-German comparator payline.
- Managing Director’s conclusion for 2006: Management considered raising the Fund payline above U.S. alignment levels but decided such adjustment “was not needed to maintain the Fund’s competitive position.” (Statement by the Managing Director on Staff Compensation—2006 Review, Executive Board Meeting, April 19, 2006.)
- Applicants argued that because the U.S.-indicated payline was only 8 percent above the French/German comparators (below the 10 percent floor), the Board had discretion to raise but did not do so, evidencing inadequate protection of international competitiveness.
- SAC urged an upward adjustment and expressed “serious concerns” about the system’s first application.

### Legal framework, precedents, and standard of review applied by the Tribunal
- Foundational legal touchstones:
  - de Merode (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981)) established that some administrative practice can become part of conditions of employment and distinguished “fundamental and essential” elements (not subject to unilateral amendment) from less fundamental elements (subject to amendment reviewed for abuse of discretion).
  - The Tribunal is bound by institutional interpretations of the Articles of Agreement by the Executive Board under Article III (third sentence) of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, subject to review by the Board of Governors per Article XXIX of the Articles of Agreement.
- Tribunal’s review approach:
  - narrow review of regulatory decisions, respecting institutional discretion and policy-making provinces;
  - changes to non-fundamental employment terms are reviewed for abuse of discretion using the de Merode standards:
    - decisions must be based on proper consideration of relevant facts;
    - reasonably related to intended objectives;
    - made in good faith and without improper motives;
    - not discriminatorily unjustifiable;
    - made reasonably to avoid excessive and unnecessary harm to staff.
  - The Tribunal will not substitute its judgment where reasonable alternative policy choices exist.

### Tribunal’s factual and legal findings
- The Tribunal concluded:
  - The Fund’s long-standing aim to maintain international competitiveness of salaries has been a principal objective since at least 1979 and may constitute a fundamental condition of employment insofar as it inheres in Article XII, Section 4(d) and the Fund’s consistent practice.
  - However, none of the specific provisions challenged in the April 14, 2006 decision (sector weight changes, 3-year cycle with indexation years, or constrained Board discretion within the testing range) represented a “fundamental or essential” condition of employment such that their amendment was categorically prohibited.
  - The 3-year cycle and use of published U.S. indices, and the revised sector weights and pitch, were taken after study and consultation and bear a reasonable relation to maintaining international competitiveness.
  - The widened discretion of the Executive Board was subject to constraints related to international competitiveness considerations (including recruitment and retention experience, margin erosion or surpassing, and tax and exchange rate effects) and did not on the record show abuse of discretion.
  - Correcting identified “overcompetitiveness” at certain grades, aiming for cost, equity, administrative simplicity, and comprehensibility, are legitimate policy objectives supporting the revisions.
  - The April 17, 2006 application of the revised system to the 2006 round—which produced an overall reduction in the A9-B2 salary structure of 0.7 percent on average but included transitional protections so no staff member experienced an actual 2006 salary reduction—was not taken in disregard of relevant facts and did not constitute an abuse of Executive Board discretion.
- Outcome:
  - The Administrative Tribunal unanimously denied the Applications.

### Decision details and conclusion
- Tribunal decision: Applications denied.
- Signatures and formalities:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., January 24, 2007

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Judgment and decision (hearings held January 22, 23 and 24, 2007; decision dated January 24, 2007).*

### Introduction

### Introduction

### Overview of proceedings
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on January 22, 23 and 24, 2007, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, to adjudge a case brought against the International Monetary Fund by five staff members.
- The Applicants filed five identical Applications contesting the Executive Board’s April 14, 2006 decision to revise the methodology for determining staff salaries and the implementation of that amended system in the 2006 compensation round.

### Applicants’ challenges (identical Applications)
- Contest changes to sector weights applied in calculating salaries in the comparator markets (United States and French/German), specifically:
  - increasing the public sector weight;
  - decreasing the private industrial sector weight;
  - maintaining unchanged the private financial sector weight but lowering its “pitch”.
- Challenge implementation of a 3-year cycle for assessing “international competitiveness” of salaries for Grade A9–B2 staff:
  - undertake a full assessment of the international comparator markets every third year;
  - rely (with discretion to apply certain exceptions) upon published indices of United States data for each of the other two years.
- Challenge vesting the Executive Board with discretion (subject to specified constraints) to adjust Fund salaries upward or downward:
  - when they fall within the “testing range” for international competitiveness; and
  - when they fall outside of that range.
- Legal claims asserted by Applicants:
  - amendment is contrary to the internal law of the Fund and general principles of international administrative law;
  - Executive Board’s decision violates a fundamental condition of employment—the Fund’s obligation under the Articles of Agreement to maintain an internationally diverse staff of the highest quality;
  - decision fails to comply with the Fund’s rules-based compensation system;
  - improper motive to reduce staff compensation;
  - the amendment process was not based on proper consideration of relevant facts, rendering the decision arbitrary and an abuse of discretion;
  - the contested decision resulted in a downward adjustment of staff compensation for 2006 and future discretionary exercises will erode international competitiveness of salaries in violation of terms and conditions of employment.

### Respondent’s position (IMF)
- The Executive Board’s decision was a proper exercise of discretionary authority aimed at maintaining international competitiveness of Fund salaries.
- The decision did not violate any fundamental condition of Applicants’ employment and was not improperly motivated.
- Decision resulted from a process of study and deliberation in which key stakeholders were consulted.
- As to the 2006 implementation, Applicants have not demonstrated any abuse of discretion and speculative concerns about future abuse do not provide a legal basis for challenge.

### Procedural history
- Applicants filed five identical Applications on July 17, 2006; Applications were transmitted to the Fund on July 18, 2006.
- Respondent was invited to file a single Answer; Respondent filed its Answer on September 1, 2006.
- Applicants requested and were granted an extension to file their Reply; Reply submitted on October 31, 2006.
- Respondent’s Rejoinder was filed on December 4, 2006.
- Internal notice to staff was circulated under Rule IV, para. (f) upon transmittal of the Applications; Rule IX, para. 1 governed the reply time limit.

### Factual background — history of the Fund’s compensation system (selected highlights)
- Formal system for salary adjustment at the IMF was not implemented until 1979; prior to 1979 salary adjustments were “more or less annually, on an ad hoc basis, without an underlying pre-determined methodology or set of considerations.”
- 1979: System adopted providing periodic review based on surveys of comparator organizations, using the United States as the primary market for professional grades, tested against non-U.S. comparators; Executive Board retained discretion to set salaries differing from comparators.
- 1984: Terms of Reference for a Joint Bank/Fund Committee of Executive Directors on Staff Remuneration (JCC) emphasized ensuring recruitment and retention of high-caliber international staff.
- May 1, 1989: New compensation system implemented; features included:
  - U.S. market as primary comparator with French/German as secondary test markets;
  - sector weights revised from equal public/private to one-third public sector, one-third private financial sector, and one-third private industrial sector;
  - compensation linked to the 75th percentile of comparator markets (with need to keep under review);
  - payline for grades A1-A8 set by extrapolation from A9-B5 payline with checks against comparators.
- Testing range for “international competitiveness” established at 10 and 20 percent:
  - if the U.S. comparator fell below the 10 percent margin or above the 20 percent margin for a number of grades, evaluation would be needed;
  - considerations included extent of margin erosion or surpassing, recruitment and retention experience, and exchange rate developments.
- Under the pre-2005 rule, automaticity applied when the U.S.-indicated payline fell within the 10-20 percent testing range: Executive Board had no discretion to adjust salaries in that case; discretion applied only when U.S.-indicated payline fell outside that range.
- Empirical summary provided by Respondent:
  - in thirteen of the seventeen years in which the automaticity rule was in effect, the initial U.S.-indicated adjustment placed the Fund payline outside the 10-20 percent testing range;
  - in eleven of those thirteen years, the Executive Board exercised discretion to adjust the salary structure either upward or downward.
- For five consecutive years, 2000-2004, the U.S.-indicated payline fell above the 20 percent ceiling and the Executive Board adjusted the salary structure downward rather than ratify full U.S.-indicated increases.
- In 2004, several Executive Board Members called for a review of the overall compensation system.

### Employment, Compensation and Benefits Review (ECBR)
- July 30, 2004: Managing Director announced a broad review—the Employment, Compensation and Benefits Review (ECBR)—to examine employment strategies, salary system and benefits, and coordination of compensation decisions with the budget process.
- ECBR objectives (Terms of Reference) included:
  - Employ high-quality staff of diverse nationalities and skills.
  - Provide compensation competitive with the market at different grades and skills to support recruitment and retention, while being as economic and cost-effective as possible.
  - Make consistent decisions on salaries and budgets within a predictable, rules-based process.
- ECBR governance and process:
  - Steering Committee chaired by Director of Human Resources Department; outside consulting firm engaged for an initial study.
  - Steering Committee consulted extensively with the Staff Association Committee (SAC) and intended transparency.
  - Consultations included departmental comments, town hall meetings, a dedicated electronic mailbox, informal briefings and seminars with the Executive Board (SAC representatives participated).
- Advisory inputs and findings:
  - July 28, 2005: Consultants’ Report concluded the Fund’s salary structure was “overcompetitive” at lower grades and “undercompetitive” at higher grades.
  - Chair of the Steering Committee indicated the Committee would prepare its own assessment.
- Steering Committee recommendations (January 2006 papers):
  - “Align the Fund payline more closely to the market by steepening the Fund payline between Grades A12 and B2, and bending the Fund payline downward from Grade A12 to Grade A9.”
  - Proposed a 4-year cycle for adjustments to the salary structure.
  - Companion paper emphasized the compensation system should “continue to be comparator-based .... [and] rules-based,” and proposed a system for adjustments when the payline fell within the 10-20 percent testing range as an alternative to the January 2005 amendment.
- Managing Director’s staff communications:
  - September 6, 2004 message stressed the essential nature of maintaining a compensation and benefits system that is internationally competitive and attractive to recruit and retain staff of the highest caliber.
  - December 6, 2004 message stated the core principles underlying the existing system would not be changed, and that the system would continue to provide for periodic structural increases designed to ensure international competitiveness, taking into account relevant comparator markets.

### Staff Association Committee (SAC) response
- January 17, 2006: SAC filed detailed responses and alternatives; key positions included:
  - Welcome for maintenance of a rules-based compensation system that preserves competitiveness vis-à-vis U.S. and international comparator markets.
  - Acceptance that Executive Directors require some discretion to smooth annual salary increases within the 10-20 percent margin, while stressing that the margin is a system feature for all staff.
  - Support for a quadrennial comprehensive review provided it prevents misalignments and does not become a “mini-ECBR” every four years.
  - Sympathy for simplifying the process and generating administrative savings when salaries are determined on the basis of an index in certain years.
  - Support for inclusion of supplementary market information (international financial centers, academia, selected international organizations) and for decompression of the B3-B5 grade structure.
  - Expression of concern about specific recommendations where modifications are warranted and identification of considerable risks to be further fleshed out.
- SAC noted that past salary adjustments did not always preserve the minimum 10 percent margin (for example in 1996-97) and observed that the last time salaries were adjusted upward to preserve the floor of the testing range was in 1994; in 2000-2004 the competitiveness test resulted in downward adjustments.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — Introduction (hearings held January 22, 23 and 24, 2007).*

### 24.      A series of Board meetings was held in early 2006, at which consideration was given to

### Implementation of the ECBR relating to the compensation system

### Board meetings and Managing Director statements (early 2006)
- A series of Executive Board meetings in early 2006 considered implementation of aspects of the ECBR relating to the compensation system.
- The Managing Director, reporting on the March 3, 2006 meeting, noted the consultants’ Report found the Fund “was overcompetitive at lower grades and undercompetitive at higher grades.”
- The Managing Director reported that the steering committee proposed, and he endorsed, proposals to “over time change the slope of the payline, raising salaries at the higher grades and lowering salaries at the lower grades.”  
- The Board did not reach agreement to accept changes that “would result in significant pay increases at the higher grades,” making the point that the Fund “is a public sector institution, with greater security of tenure and lower levels of risk than in the private sector.” (Message from the Managing Director on the ECBR Board Meeting, March 3, 2006.)
- On April 13, 2006 the Managing Director stated Management’s central objective: “to produce a simpler and more transparent system that links Fund salaries more closely to market levels.”
- The Managing Director noted Board discretion: “The Board has discretion to set salaries below the levels warranted by comparison with the Fund’s primary comparator market (the U.S.) only when the competitiveness margin over non-U.S. markets exceeds 10 percent. When this margin is met, the Board has discretion to set salaries below U.S. levels – but only if it deems that such a move would not impair the international competitiveness of Fund salaries.” (Statement by the Managing Director on Employment, Compensation and Benefits Review – Proposed Decisions, Executive Board Meeting 06/36, April 14, 2006.)
- Management committed that “staff will conduct further work on the properties of [the ECI-based] index in the coming months and also explore whether other established/published series could provide a better indicator.” (Statement by the Managing Director, April 14, 2006.)

### January 2005 amendment, Baker et al. litigation, and subsequent developments
- On January 24, 2005 the Executive Board enacted amendments expanding circumstances under which the Board could exercise discretion to adjust salaries when the U.S. payline fell within the “testing range” as well as when it fell above or below that range.
- Seven staff members (Baker et al.) challenged the January 2005 enactment before the IMF Administrative Tribunal.
- The Fund moved for summary dismissal, arguing the Applicants had not been “adversely affected” and the amendment had no adverse financial effect in the 2005 compensation round.
- In IMFAT Judgment No. 2005-3 (December 6, 2005) (“Baker I”), the Tribunal denied the Fund’s Motion, concluding the Applicants were “adversely affected” because the January 2005 decision had “some present effect” and “that effect is inherent in the wider discretion that the Executive Board has assumed in respect of salary adjustments which, in the absence of further action by the Executive Board, will be applied in 2006.” (Para. 21.)
- The January 2005 enactment was superseded in April 2006 by a further Executive Board decision.
- In IMFAT Judgment No. 2006-4 (June 7, 2006) (“Baker II”), the Tribunal dismissed as moot the Applications in Baker et al. on the ground that the January 24, 2005 decision would no longer be applied and did not continue to have any “present effect.” The Tribunal observed that Applicants and other staff members retained the right to bring fresh Applications challenging the April 2006 scheme. (Para. 22.)

### April 14, 2006 Executive Board decision: principal provisions and objectives
- The Executive Board decision of April 14, 2006 “... supersedes all previous decisions concerning the staff compensation system.” It adopts paragraphs 4–52 of EBAP/06/38 (March 31, 2006).
- The revised system establishes a three-year review cycle:
  - Year 1: comparator-based reviews with full comparisons of compensation levels in designated comparator markets for Grades A9-B2 and A1-A8, plus other considerations (for Grades A9-B2, assessment of international competitiveness).
  - Years 2 and 3: structural adjustments based on an index of private and public sector salary increases in the United States.
  - Annual resources allocated for individual, performance-related merit increases, taking into account each year’s approved adjustment to the salary structure.
- Basic objectives and principles (derived from Article XII, Section 4 (d) of the Articles of Agreement):
  - a. highly competitive in the national markets and market sectors in which the Fund competes for staff, and effective in supporting recruitment and retention of a diverse, multinational staff meeting the highest standards of quality and professionalism;
  - b. structured and administered to provide effective incentives for high standards of performance;
  - c. internally equitable and consistent; and
  - d. cost effective in design and operation.
- Two guiding principles:
  - The system is comparator-based (periodic reviews using an established set of comparator markets and designated benchmark levels).
  - The system is rules-based (major provisions and procedures are clearly defined while allowing management and the Executive Board to exercise judgment within defined parameters).

### Comparator-based review for Grades A9–B2 (Year 1) — market definition, sector weights, and pitch
- Primary comparator market: the United States market; competitiveness indicated by the U.S. market is tested against an international market.
- Each national comparator market includes three sectors with the following weights:
  - Public sector, with a 50 percent weight;
  - Private financial sector, with a 40 percent weight; and
  - Private industrial sector, with a 10 percent weight.
- Market pitch (level-setting rules for comparator market paylines):
  - (i) the 75th percentile of the U.S. industrial sector and of each sector in the international (French and German) comparator market;
  - (ii) a level 10 percent above the mean of the U.S. public sector; and
  - (iii) on a sliding scale between the 75th percentile and the mean of the U.S. financial sector (for the U.S. financial sector).

### Provisions governing international competitiveness and adjustments to the Fund payline
- After grade-by-grade adjustments, a provisional A9–B2 payline aligned with the U.S. market (using the MSE measurement method) will be produced; an adjustment to the average level of this provisional payline is permitted, but not required, based on an evaluation of international competitiveness.
- Factors considered in international competitiveness: recent recruitment and retention experience; extent to which the margin over the international test market has been eroded or surpassed; effects of tax and exchange rate developments on the international market payline.
- Adjustment rules:
  - (a) The targeted margin for international competitiveness will be a range that is 10–20 percent above the designated level of salaries in the international comparator market.
  - (b) If alignment with the U.S. market would produce a Fund payline that, on a staff-weighted average, falls outside the 10–20 percent target range, the provisional A9–B2 payline could be adjusted:
    - (i) upward if the Fund payline would otherwise fall below the 10 percent floor of the range; or
    - (ii) downward if the Fund payline would otherwise fall above the 20 percent ceiling of the range.
    - An upward adjustment from below the 10 percent floor could raise the A9–B2 payline to a level either below or above that threshold.
    - A downward adjustment from above the 20 percent ceiling that would position the payline below that threshold would be constrained by rules within the target zone (see (c)).
  - (c) When alignment with the U.S. market, or a discretionary downward adjustment under (b), would produce a payline within the 10–20 target range, any downward adjustment could not result in a staff-weighted average A9–B2 payline less than the higher of:
    - (i) a level equal to 10 percent above the level indicated by the international comparator market, and
    - (ii) a level resulting from a staff-weighted average percentage structural increase at least equal to the percentage increase in the Washington metropolitan area Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending in January.
- Application note: “The CPI floor would only apply in circumstances where there is a downward adjustment of the Fund payline indicated by alignment with the U.S. market within the target range of international competitiveness. Accordingly, the floor would not apply when (a) the downward adjustment would still place the Fund’s payline above the 20 percent floor or (b) the alignment of the Fund’s payline with the U.S. market would place the payline within the target range and no downward adjustment is sought. If warranted by considerations of international competitiveness, an upward adjustment from a level within the target range would be permitted.”
- In the event of international-competitiveness-based adjustments, such adjustments would normally be applied uniformly to the A9–B2 payline; however, different adjustments could be made to individual grades (with offsetting adjustments to other grades) if necessary for reasons of international competitiveness.

### Indexation-based reviews for Grades A9–B2 (Years 2 and 3)
- In years 2 and 3 of each three-year cycle, structural adjustments (uniform across all grade levels) will be determined in accordance with an index that incorporates annual rates of compensation increases in the public and private sector of the United States.
- Except as provided, the international test market would not be taken into account in determining the size of these adjustments.
- Application of the indexation formula:
  - In years 2 and 3 the Grade A9–B2 salary structure (range minima, midpoints, and maxima) will be increased uniformly by the amount indicated by the increase in the chosen salary index.
- Management may propose an upward adjustment to the index-indicated salary increase if one or more of the following conditions is met:
  - there is compelling evidence that movements in the index are unrepresentative in a material way of general salary trends in the U.S. comparator market;
  - changes in U.S. tax policy make it likely that there will be significant increases in net salaries at the Fund at the time of the next comparator-based review; or
  - movements in the euro-dollar exchange rate create significant competitiveness problems for staff recruitment that warrant remedial action prior to the next comparator-based review. (EBAP/06/38.)

### April 17, 2006 Executive Board decision implementing the revised system for 2006
- On April 17, 2006 the Executive Board adopted a decision giving effect to the revised compensation system for the 2006 round (EBAP/06/44).
- Respondent summarized the effect in 2006 as “a steepening of the Fund’s payline and an overall reduction in the A9-B2 salary structure of 0.7 percent on average, with the midpoints at Grades A9-A13 reduced and those for Grades A14–B2 increased.”
- The 2006 salary adjustments included transitional arrangements ensuring that no staff member would experience an actual reduction in salary for 2006.

*Source: Executive Board decisions and Managing Director statements cited in the April 14, 2006 and April 17, 2006 Executive Board documents and related IMF Administrative Tribunal judgments as described in the cited material.*

### 36.      Additionally, in 2006, the U.S.-indicated payline for Grades A9-B2 established an

### j2007-1 - 36.      Additionally, in 2006, the U.S.-indicated payline for Grades A9-B2 established an 

### U.S.-indicated payline and Managing Director’s position
- The U.S.-indicated payline for Grades A9-B2 in 2006 established an average margin of 8 percent above the French-German comparator payline.
- Managing Director’s guidance:
  - When the competitiveness margin is less than 10 percent, the rules of the compensation system allow, but do not require, an increase in the payline above U.S. levels.
  - An evaluation of the international competitiveness of Fund salaries is the basis for any such adjustment.
  - Management considered raising the Fund payline above levels indicated by alignment with the U.S. market but decided such adjustment “was not needed to maintain the Fund’s competitive position.” (Statement by the Managing Director on Staff Compensation—2006 Review, Executive Board Meeting, April 19, 2006.)
- Related transitional arrangements noted for the revised salary structure for Grades A1-B5 to be put into effect on May 1, 2006: 
  - (a) staff members’ performance-based salary adjustments in 2006;
  - (b) avoiding salary reductions for staff whose existing salaries are above the new and lower maxima of their salary ranges;
  - (c) ensuring that all staff will have the possibility of receiving a salary increase in 2006. (EBAP/06/44, para. 32.)

### Factors cited in support of not adjusting the payline upward
- Management cited the following in support of the decision:
  - the Fund’s recruitment/retention experience in 2005 did not point to competitiveness problems that need to be addressed by an adjustment of the entire salary schedule;
  - experience suggests that modest deviations from the 10-20 percent target margin do not significantly impair recruitment/retention; the margin was also below 10 percent during the mid-1990s, but the Fund remained competitive and was able to expand professional staffing very substantially;
  - the euro depreciation that explains much of the decline in the competitiveness margin between the 2005 and 2006 reviews has since largely reversed itself.

### Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reaction
- The SAC rejected Management’s analysis and urged an upward adjustment to the U.S.-indicated payline, stating:
  - serious concerns about the new system at the time of its first application;
  - conviction that downgrading the salary structure, particularly at key recruitment and retention grades, will have an adverse effect on the Fund’s ability to attract international staff of the highest quality;
  - call for Management to propose, and the Board to endorse, an upward adjustment in view of the circumstances. (SAC Statement on 2006 Review of Staff Compensation (EBAP/06/44), April 17, 2006.)

### Administrative Tribunal filings and contested decisions
- Key dates and actions:
  - The Executive Board amended the compensation system on April 14, 2006 and announced the decision the same day.
  - On April 17, 2006 the Board set staff salaries for the 2006 compensation round based on the amended system.
  - Applicants filed their Applications with the Administrative Tribunal on July 17, 2006.
- Procedural note:
  - Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, an application challenging the legality of a “regulatory decision” may be filed within three months of its announcement or effective date; no channels of administrative review need be exhausted for direct challenges to regulatory decisions.

### Applicants’ principal contentions (summary)
- The April 14, 2006 decision:
  1. is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion in lowering the benchmark for Fund salaries and widening the Fund’s discretion to adjust staff compensation downward;
  2. violates the Fund’s obligation under the Articles of Agreement to hire an internationally diverse staff of the highest quality;
  3. fails to comply with the principles of the Fund’s rules-based compensation system, the internal law of the Fund, and general principles of international administrative law;
  4. weakens the Fund’s ability to attract and retain international staff of the highest quality;
  5. specific elements (e.g., reducing the financial sector “pitch” and increasing weight of public v. private sector comparators) have weakened competitiveness, particularly at key grades;
  6. was improperly motivated and reflects an intention to reduce staff benefits;
  7. during indexing years, Fund salaries will follow only the U.S. market without consideration of international comparators, resulting in erosion of international competitiveness;
  8. guarantee of international competitiveness is a fundamental and essential condition of employment that must continue to be ensured;
  9. widening of Board discretion resulted in a downward adjustment in staff compensation for 2006 and will further erode internationally competitive salary levels;
  10. through consistent practice, the Fund has restricted its discretion regarding:
      - a. comparator market weights and pitch;
      - b. an annual comparator-based review taking into account international comparators;
      - c. “automaticity” within the testing range;
  11. the new rules permit the Executive Board to deprive Applicants of the certainty inherent in a rules-based system;
  12. the mere possibility of upward discretion does not adequately safeguard international competitiveness;
  13. the decision was not based on proper consideration of relevant facts and not reasonably related to its objectives.
- Relief sought:
  - a. rescission of the Executive Board’s April 14, 2006 decision widening discretion to adjust salaries downwards;
  - b. declaration null and void of the Executive Board’s April 17, 2006 decision implementing the amended system in the 2006 round and retroactive determination of 2006 compensation on the basis of the pre-January 2005 system;
  - c. legal costs.

### Respondent’s principal contentions (summary)
- Respondent’s defenses include:
  1. the Executive Board did not transgress legally binding norms in amending terms and conditions of employment;
  2. methodology decisions for salary adjustments are within the discretionary authority of governing organs and not to be second-guessed by administrative tribunals;
  3. Applicants’ challenge is essentially methodological rather than legal;
  4. the Articles of Agreement requirement to hire an internationally diverse staff of the highest quality does not mandate a specific compensation system or market relationship;
  5. the decision did not abrogate fundamental or essential conditions of Applicants’ employment;
  6. specific features of the revised system do not infringe fundamental employment conditions, including:
      - a. changes to comparator market weights and pitch;
      - b. annual comparator-based review that takes into account international comparators only every third year while relying on U.S. indices for the other two years;
      - c. constrained use of discretion rather than “automaticity” within the “testing range”;
  7. a lower salary structure than the previous system does not mean it is not competitive or contravenes legal requirements;
  8. the Fund has never made a formal commitment to keep compensation rules unchanged;
  9. the revised system continues to determine Fund salaries based on a detailed and predictable methodology using relevant comparator markets;
  10. the challenged application in 2006 relates to features in place since 1989;
  11. speculation about potential future abuse of discretion does not provide a current legal basis for Applicants’ challenge.

### Legal and review principles applied by the Tribunal
- The Tribunal’s stance:
  - Management enjoys broad managerial and administrative discretion subject only to limited review by the Tribunal (Mr. “R”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2002-2; Ms. “J”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2003-1).
  - Review of regulatory decisions is competent but narrow; tribunals respect principles protecting the decision-making organs of an institution from judicial interference.
  - The Fund’s authority to amend terms and conditions is circumscribed by formal written internal law (Articles of Agreement, By-Laws and Rules and Regulations, General Administrative Orders) and unwritten sources; voluntary commitments or consistent established practice may limit amendment power.
  - A fundamental limitation is protection against retroactive deprivation of benefits—acquired or vested rights—interpreted narrowly as non-retroactivity; prospective alterations remain permissible.
  - The Tribunal will not substitute its judgment for management where reasonable alternative policy choices exist; differences in policy that are rational and related to objective factors are within managerial authority (Mr. “R” case law).

*Source: International Monetary Fund*

### 50.      The Tribunal’s Judgment in Mr. “R”

### 50.      The Tribunal’s Judgment in Mr. “R”

### Tribunal decisions cited and their holdings
- The Tribunal upheld the Fund’s decision in Mr. “R”, noting the manner of arriving at the decision had been “deliberate” and taken “after extended consideration.”
- The Tribunal found the distinction in benefits to be “rational, related to objective factors, and untainted by any animus.”
- The allocation of differing benefits was “reasonably related to the purposes of these benefits,” in particular the “incentive to recruitment” for particular posts.
- In Ms. “G”, Applicant and Mr. “H”, Intervenor v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2002-3 (December 18, 2002), the Tribunal denied a challenge to an Executive Board decision allocating eligibility for expatriate benefits according to visa status, concluding that the “substance of the Fund’s choice is rational and defensible” (para. 80).
- The Tribunal relied on the principle that “the care with which a reform has been studied and conditions attached to a change are to be taken into account by the Tribunal,” citing de Merode (paragraph 47).

### Rational-nexus standard for expatriate benefits
- The Tribunal in Ms. “G” examined whether there was a “rational nexus” between the “goals of the expatriate benefits policy” and the “method for allocating these benefits,” noting such a nexus “does not require that there be a perfect fit between the objectives of the policy and the classification scheme established, and .... may rest upon generalizations.” (Para. 79.)
- The Tribunal concluded the Fund’s choice of a visa criterion for allocation of expatriate benefits is reasonable, not arbitrary but deliberate, and that its decisions in 1985, reaffirmed in 1994 and refined in 2002, when “rationally related to the mission and objectives of the Fund,” cannot be overridden by the Tribunal. (Para. 80.)

### Application to April 14, 2006 contested decision
- The Tribunal indicates that the jurisprudence summarized above will be applied in assessing whether the Executive Board abused its discretion in enacting the contested decision of April 14, 2006.

### Attribution of these findings
- The Tribunal’s reasoning and precedents (Mr. “R”; Ms. “G”; de Merode) are central to the Tribunal’s approach in reviewing Executive Board decisions relating to allocation of benefits and classification criteria.

---

### Fundamental conditions of employment and the framework of de Merode

### de Merode (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981)) — facts and threshold question
- de Merode involved six staff members challenging 1979 World Bank Executive Board decisions altering methodologies for tax reimbursement and salary adjustment.
- Applicants contended contested decisions resulted in salaries as much as 29 percent lower than under the previous system; four of the six complained of “substantial reductions in their gross income.” (Para. 12.)
- The WBAT asked: “Does the World Bank have the power – and, if so, within what limits – unilaterally to change the conditions of employment of its staff?” (Para. 15.)

### de Merode legal principles adopted or noted
- Administrative practice may, in certain circumstances, “become part of the conditions of employment” if followed by the organization “in the conviction that it reflects a legal obligation.” (de Merode, para. 23.)
- The WBAT recognized the power to make rules implies the right to amend them, and the Bank possessed implied power to pursue fully and efficiently its purposes, including applying new rules immediately to personnel already employed. (de Merode, paras. 31 and 36.)
- Crucial distinction: “fundamental and essential” elements of conditions of employment cannot be unilaterally amended; less fundamental elements may be changed subject to review for abuse of discretion. (de Merode, paras. 42–43.)
- The distinction between the “principle” of a condition and its “implementation” is central: a principle may be essential while its implementation may be less so.

### Influence on IMFAT and its Statute
- de Merode directly influenced drafting of the Statute of the IMF Administrative Tribunal; the Commentary on the Statute recognizes that “the administrative practice of the organization [which] may, in certain circumstances, give rise to legal rights and obligations.” (Report of the Executive Board, p. 18.)
- The Tribunal may take note of sister tribunals’ solutions where sufficiently comparable conditions exist.

---

### Does the contested Executive Board decision abrogate fundamental conditions?

### Central legal question for the Tribunal
- Whether elements of the Fund’s compensation system constitute “fundamental and essential” conditions of employment (per de Merode) and whether the contested decision abrogates any such elements.

### Applicants’ assertions
- Applicants argue the Executive Board abused its discretion by violating:
  - The principle of international competitiveness of Fund salaries, which they contend is a fundamental condition of employment and a stated objective of the compensation system.
  - The principle of ensuring a rules-based compensation system.

### Express statements of Fund objectives and management messages
- The contested Executive Board decision expressly states: “The central objectives of the Fund’s staff compensation system are derived from Article XII, Section 4(d) of the Articles of Agreement, which provides that, subject to the paramount importance of securing the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence, the appointment of staff should ‘pay due regard to the importance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.’” (EBAP/06/38, para. 7.)
- Managing Director message to staff (December 6, 2004): “Regarding the compensation system, ... the core principles that underlie the design of the existing system will not be changed. Specifically, the compensation system will continue to provide structural increases in salaries that are designed to ensure that staff salaries remain internationally competitive, taking into account relevant comparator markets.”
- The goal of international competitiveness was also expressly stated in earlier revisions, e.g., 1989 (See JCC Terms of Reference; Staff Bulletin No. 89/10).

### Tribunal’s findings on the principle of international competitiveness
- It is uncontested that a principal aim of the Fund’s compensation system at least since 1979 has been to maintain international competitiveness; the Fund’s practice may be “evidence that [this practice] is followed by the organization in the conviction that it reflects a legal obligation.” (de Merode, para. 23; Report of the Executive Board, p. 18.)
- The conclusion that international competitiveness of Fund salaries is, or has become, a fundamental condition of staff employment flows from:
  - Interpretation that the principle inheres in Article XII, Section 4(d) of the Articles of Agreement.
  - The Fund’s consistent and express incorporation of international competitiveness in its salary-adjustment methodology.

### Text of Article XII, Section 4(d)
- “Section 4. Managing Director and staff
  ...
  (d) In appointing the staff the Managing Director shall, subject to the paramount importance of securing the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence, pay due regard to the importance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.”

### Limits on interpreting Article XII, Section 4(d)
- The Articles do not expressly require competitive recruitment or competitive compensation, nor do they refer to staff compensation.
- Prior to 1979 the Fund’s modus operandi did not appear to transgress the Articles even though international competitiveness had not been adopted as governing compensation.
- The provision is common across United Nations family organizations, but most do not interpret it as requiring salaries competitive with private financial and industrial sectors.
- A tenable interpretation supports the Fund’s long-standing practice that “staff of the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence” require salaries competitive with public and private sectors, a position bolstered by the Fund’s and Bank’s post-Kafka Report practice and by evidence of organizational conviction.

### Legal and institutional context limiting the Tribunal
- Article III of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal provides the Tribunal is bound by any interpretation of the Fund's Articles of Agreement decided by the Executive Board, subject to review by the Board of Governors in accordance with Article XXIX of that Agreement.
- The Executive Board, since 1979, appears to have interpreted the Articles to require maintaining a system implementing “international competitiveness.”

### Characterization of the interpretation
- The interpretation that the Articles require international competitiveness is reasonable but not necessitated by the text; it is not an interpretation expressly required by the Articles.
- It cannot be assumed the Fund could not recruit highly qualified staff if compensation were competitive only with public sectors or weighted toward public-sector comparators.

### Rules-based compensation principle
- Since 1979 the compensation system has been described as “rules-based,” featuring a clearly defined methodology for comparator markets, aggregation formulae, and procedures for annual salary adjustments.
- The ECBR Steering Committee noted a “salient feature of the compensation system over the past 15 years has been its objective, rules-based methodology...”
- The April 14, 2006 Executive Board decision states: “The system is rules-based. The major provisions of the system, including the definition of the comparator markets and the procedures used to determine the annual salary adjustments, will be clearly defined so that the annual reviews will be conducted in accordance with an established methodology, while still allowing management and the Executive Board to exercise judgment, within defined parameters, in setting salary levels.” (EBAP/06/38, para. 8.)

### Parties’ contrasting positions on principle vs. methodology
- Respondent argues Article XII, Section 4(d) has never been understood as mandating a particular type of compensation system or a specific market relationship or level, but accommodates systems adapted to evolving policy priorities and circumstances.
- Applicants concede the Executive Board has made significant changes over time and that the requirement in Article XII, Section 4(d) may be met in different ways; their contention is whether the particular system at issue meets the essential elements of Article XII, Section 4(d).

---

*Source: IMF Administrative Tribunal judgment excerpt.*

### 73.      The Tribunal observes that it is clear from the history of the Fund’s compensation system

### The Tribunal observes that it is clear from the history of the Fund’s compensation system

### Evolution of the Fund’s compensation system
- The Fund’s compensation system "has been far from static."
- The Fund instituted a rules-based system for adjustment of staff salaries in 1979 and continued to review and revise compensation rules thereafter, including an amended system in 1989 and further revisions through January 2005 and April 14, 2006.
- Other international organizations with virtually identical governing provisions have implemented them in differing ways; the Fund "has always been, and remains, entitled to reconsider and re-shape the rules-based system for adjustment of staff salaries that it instituted in 1979."

### Principle of international competitiveness
- There is "no specific or objective test as to what level of salaries may be regarded as ‘internationally competitive.’ It is a matter of judgment..."
- Whether the April 2006 revision maintains international competitiveness is an empirical question subject only to limited review by the Administrative Tribunal.
- The Tribunal may examine whether the decision was taken with appropriate consideration of relevant facts, "for example, the recruitment and retention data that periodically are collected and analyzed by the Fund."
- Practice characteristics:
  - (i) Comparators are drawn from selected markets in which the Fund competes for talent.
  - (ii) These comparisons are updated from time to time to reflect changes in those markets and in the Fund’s staffing needs.
- Judgments on which markets to target, weightings of public v. private sectors, and weights of comparators are complex policy decisions; when reasonably based, they are "beyond the competence of the Tribunal to reconsider."

### Challenges to specific provisions of the amended system
- Applicants specifically challenged elements of the 2006 amendment:
  - (i) Changes to sector weights in calculating salaries in comparator (United States and French/German) markets: increasing public sector weight, decreasing private industrial sector weight, maintaining private financial sector weight but lowering its "pitch".
  - (ii) Implementation of a 3-year cycle for assessing international competitiveness of Grade A9–B2 staff: a full assessment every third year and reliance upon published indices of United States data for each of the other two years, with discretion to apply certain exceptions.
  - (iii) Vesting the Executive Board with discretion (subject to specified constraints) to adjust Fund salaries upward or downward when they fall within the "testing range" for international competitiveness as well as when they fall outside that range.
- The Fund’s position:
  - No formal commitment was made to maintain compensation rules unchanged.
  - Rules-based does not imply immutability; "rules-based" means the system "will be clearly defined so that the annual reviews will be conducted in accordance with an established methodology...."
- Tribunal findings on challenged provisions:
  - None of the specific provisions challenged represents a "fundamental or essential" condition of employment.
  - Changes to sector weights and market pitch "have been implemented on a number of occasions" and thus are "not sacrosanct and could be modified from time to time."
  - Regarding the 3-year cycle and reliance on U.S. indices, Applicants concede the Fund is "not under a legal obligation to make a full review of the compensation system every year..." The Tribunal found the 3-year cycle and use of published indices were taken "with an appropriate consideration of the relevant facts" and "bear a reasonable relation to the objective of maintaining international competitiveness."
- Applicants emphasize the risk that these elements could lead to future erosion of competitiveness, e.g., "the international competitiveness of Fund wages could be significantly eroded substantially over the course of the indexation years."

### The widening of discretion and the risk of its abuse
- Core Applicant relief sought: "rescission of the decision taken by the Fund’s Executive Board on April 14, 2006 to widen its discretion to adjust staff salaries downwards."
- Key change: elimination of "automaticity" within the testing range (feature from 1989 until its January 2005 amendment) was retained in the April 14, 2006 decision; Applicants allege resulting discretion may be abused.
- Respondent’s position: Board decisions remain subject to legal challenge, and "Speculation as to how that discretion might potentially be abused does not provide a legal basis for Applicants’ challenge in the present case."
- Tribunal notes the discretion is "constrained." Constraints based upon considerations of international competitiveness include:
  - Quoted constraint (EBAP/06/38, para. 34):
    - "34. When evaluating international competitiveness, consideration will be given to such factors as recent recruitment and retention experience, the extent to which the margin over the international test market (described below) has been eroded or surpassed, and effects of tax and exchange rate developments on the level of the international market payline."
- Applicants invoked Baker I with regard to harm suffered, but earlier Baker Applications were dismissed as moot by the Board’s April 2006 decision; the Tribunal noted standing (being "adversely affected") is distinct from prevailing on the merits.
- Jurisprudence of international administrative tribunals:
  - Provision for discretion within a system does not invalidate the system; exercise of discretion within governing parameters can lead to legally valid solutions.
  - Cited approach: allowing decision-making bodies "a wide range of discretion does not by itself invalidate the scheme."
  - Protection against arbitrariness requires that criteria used in deviating from external indices be "objective, adequate and known to the staff."

### Legal test for abuse of discretion and Tribunal’s application
- Test articulated in de Merode for abuse of discretion when changing non-fundamental employment terms:
  - Changes would be an abuse if adopted for reasons alien to proper functioning or the duty to ensure a staff with "the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence."
  - Changes must:
    - Be based on a proper consideration of relevant facts.
    - Be reasonably related to their intended objective.
    - Be made in good faith and not prompted by improper motives.
    - Not discriminate in an unjustifiable manner among staff.
    - Be made in a reasonable manner seeking to avoid excessive and unnecessary harm to staff; the care with which a reform has been studied and conditions attached are relevant.
- Applying these standards to the April 14, 2006 decision:
  - Applicants contend the Executive Board "cast aside" findings of the comprehensive review and that the decision does not reflect the outcome of analysis within that review.
  - Respondent describes the Executive Board decisionmaking as deliberative and reflecting compromise among the outside consulting firm review, the Steering Committee assessment, staff and SAC input, and Management proposals.
  - The Tribunal finds that the Executive Board’s decision reflected a process of compromise and deliberation and that this does not, by itself, demonstrate abuse of discretion or failure to take proper account of relevant facts.

*IMF Administrative Tribunal excerpt (paragraphs 73–94) from the Tribunal’s consideration of challenges to the April 14, 2006 Executive Board decision on the Fund’s compensation system.*

### 95.      As set out above at para. 23, the SAC (as well as Management) varied in its views over

### j2007-1 - 95–116 (Tribunal findings on compensation system amendment and 2006 implementation)

### Divergent views and stakeholder input
- The SAC and Management varied over time in their views on the compensation review cycle and adjustments (see SAC statement of January 17, 2006).
- Steering Committee proposed a 4-year cycle for review of international comparators, contrasted with the 3-year cycle ultimately adopted and challenged in this case.
- SAC (January 17, 2006) commented: “A quadrennial comprehensive review appears reasonable, provided it is targeted to preventing misalignments vis-à-vis our established comparator markets and does not transform into a ‘mini-ECBR’ every four years.”
- On Board discretion within the “testing range,” SAC opined: “.... we understand that Executive Directors require some discretion to smooth annual salary increases also within the 10-20 percent margin for international competitiveness.”
- The Chairman’s Summing Up, Employment, Compensation, and Benefits Review, Executive Board Meeting 06/12, February 7, 2006, chronicled diversity of opinion among Executive Directors.

### Separation of powers; tribunal competence and precedents
- Article III (third sentence) preserves the powers of the organs of the Fund under the Articles of Agreement, including discretionary authority in taking individual or regulatory decisions such as establishing or amending terms and conditions of employment.
- The Tribunal must respect the mandate of the legislative or executive organs to formulate employment policies and is not competent to question the advisability of policy decisions.
- Prior decisions cited: von Stauffenberg (WBAT), Decision No. 36 (NATO Appeals Board), S.A. de Smith, and others confirming judiciary cannot substitute its judgment for authorities vested with discretion.
- De Merode (WBAT) and Crevier v. IBRD (WBAT Decision No. 205 (1999)) cited as precedent that the Tribunal’s role is to decide whether a discretionary act was lawful, not to choose among reasonable policy alternatives.

### Process, reasonableness, and justification for amendments
- Respondent emphasized consultation with all pertinent stakeholders, use of available information, and legislative-style compromise in adopting the 2006 compensation structure.
- De Merode recognized that tax allowances need only be “reasonably related” to taxes effectively paid and that perfect exactness may be sacrificed for equity, simplicity, or administrative ease.
- Historical precedent: 1989 system implementation reflected JCC recommendations being endorsed or modified on management comment (Staff Bulletin No. 89/10 (May 22, 1989), p. 1).
- Tribunal recognition: A decision differing from recommendations does not by itself render it unreasonable (Mr. “R”, para. 63).

### Motive, cost considerations, and “overcompetitiveness”
- Applicants alleged the amendment intended “to reduce the benefits of staff members.”
- Respondent maintained that a lower salary structure under the new system “does not mean that the new system is not competitive or derogates from any legal prescriptions.”
- Tribunal found that correcting a misalignment in the Fund’s payline (being “overcompetitive” at particular grade levels) after studied consideration is a legitimate objective: Steering Committee’s Companion Paper stated linking salaries to comparator markets allows compensation that is “competitive but not overcompetitive.”
- International tribunals have upheld revisions that reduce compensation when motivated by legitimate concerns, including correcting over-reimbursement or overcompetitiveness (de Merode, para. 64).
- Cost, equity, simplicity, ease of administration, comprehensibility, and confidentiality are permissible factors in choosing methods for compensation or reimbursement (de Merode, para. 87; Kepper v. IFC, WBAT Decision No. 149 (1996), para. 26).

### The 2006 compensation round: legal challenge and Tribunal analysis
- Applicants challenged both the April 14, 2006 decision (identified as contested) and the Board’s April 17, 2006 decision applying the revised system to the 2006 compensation round.
- Applicants sought relief declaring the April 17, 2006 decision null and void and retroactive application of the pre-January 2005 compensation system for 2006.
- Applicants acknowledged that the revised system’s operation in 2006 produced a decrease in the payline relative to what the previous system would have indicated; the Fund summarized the effect in 2006 as “a steepening of the Fund’s payline and an overall reduction in the A9-B2 salary structure of 0.7 percent on average, with the midpoints at Grades A9-A13 reduced and those for Grades A14–B2 increased.” Transitional arrangements assured that no staff member would experience a reduction in salary.
- Applicants’ core complaint: because the U.S.-indicated payline was only 8 percent above that indicated by the French/German comparators (i.e., below the floor of the “testing range”), the Board had discretion to raise the payline but chose not to do so; Applicants argued the result “is strong evidence that the mere possibility of upward discretion does not provide an adequate safeguard for preserving the international competitiveness of Fund salaries.”
- Respondent noted the discretion in the 2006 round is the same discretion available under the pre-existing system; the expanded discretionary authority of the 2006 amendment applies when the initial payline falls within, not outside of, the “testing range.”
- Under the pre-existing system, upward adjustments were taken only in six of the eight years in which the initial Fund payline fell below the 10 percent floor of the testing range.
- Tribunal cited that identical technical data can lead, “after interpretation and an exercise of judgment, to a variety of solutions,... none any less legally valid than any other.” (von Stauffenberg, para. 95.)

### Tribunal conclusions and decision
- The Tribunal concluded:
  - The Executive Board acted within its authority and appropriately considered the relevant facts when adopting the revised compensation system.
  - The fact that the amendment may have weakened competitiveness in some respects does not demonstrate improper motivation given the record of study and deliberation aimed at correcting overcompetitiveness.
  - Cost considerations and correction of misalignment are legitimate motives for amending terms and conditions of employment.
  - The April 17, 2006 decision setting staff salaries for the 2006 compensation round was not taken in disregard of relevant facts and did not constitute an abuse of the Executive Board’s discretion.
- Decision: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that the Applications are denied.
- Signatures and concluding information:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Celia Goldman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., January 24, 2007

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2007-1.pdf_