Judgment No. 4685
Decision
1. UNESCO shall pay the complainant moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros.
2. It shall also pay her costs in the amount of 5,000 euros.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the implied rejection of her requests concerning the effective date of her promotion and the within-grade salary increment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; effective date; promotion
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4186, consideration 6:
“It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that the grounds for reviewing the classification of a post are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if 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 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). Indeed, 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation (or of the person acting on his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
These principles apply to both the decision to reclassify (with possible promotion) or to refuse to reclassify as well as to the date from which the reclassification should take place.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4186
Keywords
effective date; post classification; promotion; role of the tribunal
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal shares the view of the Appeals Board that an amicable settlement is always advisable when possible.
Keywords
settlement out of court; amicable settlement
|
