Judgment No. 4502
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; complaint dismissed
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal outlined the fundamental principles that apply in the context of post classification in Judgment 4221, consideration 11, which refers to Judgments 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9, 3589, consideration 4, and 3764, consideration 6 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 3764, 4000, 4221
Keywords
post classification; role of the tribunal
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will not substitute its own evaluation of the complainant’s post for the audit conducted by an expert who had the necessary training and experience to do so (see, for example, Judgments 929, consideration 5, and 2706, consideration 14). In her submissions, the complainant mainly repeats the arguments that she put forward at each step in the procedure regarding the increase and changes in the duties and responsibilities involved in her post and ultimately criticises the Organization for not accepting her version of the facts. However, the mistakes that she identifies, which tend to support the re-evaluation of the classification of her post, are insufficient to warrant a finding that the impugned decision was unlawful. As has already been stated in consideration 6,[...] it is settled case law that the Tribunal’s role is not to substitute its assessment for that of the Organization concerning the classification of a post.
The position would only be different if the file showed that the Organization had committed an obvious error of judgement when assessing the duties attached to the complainant’s post, [...]. The position would likewise be different if the file showed that an essential fact was overlooked when the decision was taken.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 929, 2706
Keywords
post classification; desk audit; role of the tribunal
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant also contends that there was a breach of the principle of equal pay for equal work in that other staff members performing similar duties to hers held posts at higher grades. On that point, the Tribunal observes that it is not ordinarily its role to compare a post whose classification is contested to the classification of similar posts in the same organisation in order to ascertain whether the classification decision is lawful (see, for example, Judgments 4000, consideration 9, and [...] 4221, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
Keywords
post classification; unequal treatment; equal pay for equal work
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that the Organization was biased against her. However, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, the burden of proving bias rests with the complainant (see Judgments 3380, consideration 9, and 3914, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3380, 3914
Keywords
burden of proof; personal prejudice
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s request that the reclassification of her post at grade P-2 “be ordered with retrospective effect from 2 December 2008” is unfounded. Furthermore, this request is irreceivable in any event, as it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make orders of this kind against organisations (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834
Keywords
competence of tribunal; order a post classification
Consideration 13
Extract:
As the excerpts from Judgment 4221, consideration 11, quoted [...] show, the classification of a post is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see also Judgment 4000, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000, 4221
Keywords
post classification; performance
| 
