Judgment No. 4664
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; complaint dismissed
Considerations 2 & 5
Extract:
It is firmly established in the case law that the grading of posts in an international organisation is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of that organisation (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20, and the case law cited therein) and that the Tribunal will only review the classification of a post on limited grounds. A classification decision cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 4502, consideration 6, 4221, consideration 11, 3589, consideration 4, 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). This is because the classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts and it is not the Tribunal’s role to undertake this process of evaluation (see, for example, aforementioned Judgments 4502, consideration 6, and 4221, consideration 11).
[...]
[T]he Tribunal points out firstly that the classification of a post depends on the functions as well as on the nature of the duties and responsibilities assigned to it, and not on the post holder’s personal qualifications or experience (including knowledge of languages), the manner in which she or he carries out those functions, or her or his professional performance, in particular in terms of performance appraisal (see, for example, Judgments 2851, consideration 7, and 1808, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 1808, 2851, 3589, 4221, 4502
Keywords
post classification
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that the recognition that there was an unreasonable delay does not in itself render the decision taken at the end of the procedure unlawful (see, for example, Judgments 4584, consideration 4, 4408, considerations 5 and 6, or 2885, consideration 14).
As regards the injury that may have been caused to the staff member by that delay, the Tribunal takes into account two considerations, namely the length of the delay and the effect of the delay on the staff member concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4493, consideration 6, 4229, consideration 5, and 4031, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2885, 4031, 4229, 4408, 4493, 4584
Keywords
time limit; internal procedure
|
