Judgment No. 4752
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; special post allowance; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4685, consideration 4, quoting 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).”
This case law is applicable not only to the judicial review of a decision on the classification or reclassification of a post, but also, as in the present case, to the decision not to start a reclassification process.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3082, 3294, 4186, 4685
Keywords
post classification; judicial review
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the situation of the complainant differs from the one of the incumbent of [the] position [in question], her contention that the principle of equal treatment was breached is unsubstantiated, as well as her contention that she was discriminated against.
Keywords
equal treatment; discrimination
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s to the alleged non-disclosure of the desk audit’s report concerning [the] position [in question], the Tribunal holds that the [organization] lawfully withheld it on grounds of confidentiality.
Keywords
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]n her rejoinder the complainant requests access to all information pertaining to previous reclassification decisions on which she relies in order to demonstrate the existence of an established practice. This request [constitutes] an impermissible fishing expedition […].
Keywords
disclosure of evidence; fishing expedition
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for the “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the unlawful abolishment of [her] position […]”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords
new claim
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he complainant asks for an “[a]ward of material and moral damages for the undue delay of the [Joint Appeals Board] process”. This claim is irreceivable since it is contained only in the complainant’s rejoinder (see, for example, Judgment 4396, consideration 7), whilst the complainant could, and should, have submitted it in her complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4396
Keywords
new claim; rejoinder
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he complainant claims the award of material and moral damages for “the undue delay of the payment of overtime”. This issue is a new claim, not raised in the internal proceedings leading to the impugned decision, and, thus, is irreceivable for failure to exhaust internal means of redress (see […] Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal).
Keywords
new claim
|
