|
|
 |
|
|
Post description (264,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Post description
Total judgments found: 58
1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 4885
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Considerations 6 and 9
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, a job description does not confer an entitlement to the continued existence of the duties or responsibilities referred to therein, or of the post to which it relates (see, for example, Judgment 4654, consideration 19).
The Tribunal points out above all that any irregularity in the situation resulting from the absence of reference in the complainant’s job description to the training duties assigned to him at the time when he performed them does not affect the lawfulness of the decision to end them. The fact that these duties had not previously been officially recognised in that form, even assuming that they should have been, obviously did not in itself make their abolition unlawful. In reality, the complainant could have effectively submitted to the Tribunal the dispute which he wishes to raise not as a challenge to the decision at issue here, but as a challenge to a decision refusing to modify his job description to take account of his previous responsibilities, which it was up to him to elicit, if necessary, by submitting a request for such a modification to UNESCO at the appropriate time. [...]
As regards the plea of a failure to state reasons, it should be recalled that the Tribunal’s case law does not require the reasons for an administrative decision to necessarily be set out in the decision itself and allows them to be provided, for example, in other documents or orally (see Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 3, or 1590, consideration 7). [...]
In those circumstances, and particularly since that outsourcing was sufficient in itself to explain the abolition of the training duties previously assigned to the complainant, the Tribunal considers that the alleged failure to state reasons of which he complains cannot, in any event, be accepted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 3662, 4451, 4654
Keywords:
motivation; outsourcing; post description;
Judgment 4880
138th Session, 2024
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his training duties.
Considerations 6 and 9
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, a job description does not confer an entitlement to the continued existence of the duties or responsibilities referred to therein, or of the post to which it relates (see, for example, Judgment 4654, consideration 19).
The Tribunal points out above all that any irregularity in the situation resulting from the absence of reference in the complainant’s job description to the training duties assigned to him at the time when he performed them does not affect the lawfulness of the decision to end them. The fact that these duties had not previously been officially recognised in that form, even assuming that they should have been, obviously did not in itself make their abolition unlawful. In reality, the complainant could have effectively submitted to the Tribunal the dispute which he wishes to raise not as a challenge to the decision at issue here, but as a challenge to a decision refusing to modify his job description to take account of his previous responsibilities, which it was up to him to elicit, if necessary, by submitting a request for such a modification to UNESCO at the appropriate time.
[...]
As regards the plea of a failure to state reasons, it should be recalled that the Tribunal’s case law does not require the reasons for an administrative decision to necessarily be set out in the decision itself and allows them to be provided, for example, in other documents or orally (see Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 3, or 1590, consideration 7). [...]
In those circumstances, and particularly since that outsourcing was sufficient in itself to explain the abolition of the training duties previously assigned to the complainant, the Tribunal considers that the alleged failure to state reasons of which he complains cannot, in any event, be accepted.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 3662, 4451, 4654
Keywords:
motivation; outsourcing; post description;
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.
Keywords:
abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied decision dismissing his request for his administrative situation to be regularised, the decision ordering his transfer, the decision to award him a special post allowance in that it excluded a certain period and the amount in question was insufficient, and the decision announcing his promotion in that it was not retroactive and did not place him on step 7 of grade G.4.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example, Judgments 4609, consideration 8, 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, or 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451, 4609
Keywords:
consultation; duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 19
Extract:
It is clear from the submissions that the functions of statistician that he performed in HRMD no longer met that department’s requirements at the time when the decisions were taken. The IT projects on which the complainant mostly worked – namely those in the “ERP portfolio” – were due to finish in June 2017. Furthermore, new applications meant that WIPO’s various administrative units could now compile their own human resources statistics rather than needing as a matter of course to consult a specialist in this field employed within HRMD, with the result that HRMD no longer needed to have a full-time statistician. Contrary to what the complainant submits, the job description for his post, as drawn up in 2008, had been rendered obsolete, given that the content of a document of this type does not confer an entitlement to the continued existence of the post to which it relates.
It thus appears that sufficient reasons underlay the abolition of the complainant’s post to justify that decision and accordingly that the disputed decision not to renew his appointment was itself based on valid, objective reasons, in compliance with the requirement recalled in consideration 16(b) [...].
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; outsourcing; post description;
Judgment 4609
135th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the new decision taken by UNESCO pursuant to Judgment 3936 in the context of her appeal against the decision to transfer her to Paris.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] requires that a staff member who is to be transferred be informed in advance of the nature of the post proposed for her or him and, in particular, of the duties involved, so that she or he is able to comment on those new duties as well (see, for example,Judgments 4451, consideration 11, 3662, consideration 5, 1556, considerations 10 and 12, and 810, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 810, 1556, 3662, 4451
Keywords:
duty to inform; post description; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant is right in contending that the unlawfulness of the impugned decision caused her moral injury. The lack of advance information provided to the complainant about the content of the new duties she was to assume and the unduly short period of time she was given to take up her new post in Paris were such as to cause her stress and anxiety and adversely affected her rights and her dignity, which is characteristic of that form of injury.
Keywords:
duty to inform; moral injury; notification; post description; time limit; transfer;
Judgment 4314
130th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal emphasises that the relevant question was not whether the complainant had a working knowledge of two or more languages but whether the job description for the post required two or more languages.
Keywords:
post classification; post description;
Judgment 4096
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the failure to act on his request to update his terms of reference and the subsequent failure to take interim measures to protect him from harassment and retaliation by his supervisors.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; harassment; post description; retaliation;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he alleged failure to provide the subject job description [did not] amount to constructive dismissal, as WIPO did not thereby breach the complainant’s contract in such a way as to indicate that it would no longer have been bound by it (see, for example, Judgment 2745, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2745
Keywords:
constructive dismissal; contract; post description;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post description;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]lthough WIPO was probably primarily concerned with the results of the restructuring exercise and had no desire to “downgrade” the complainant’s post in the strict sense, it did not act in accordance with its duty of care towards the complainant.
Keywords:
duty of care; post description; reorganisation;
Judgment 2931
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2904
108th Session, 2010
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The first substantive argument raised by the complainant regards the failure by the human resources specialist to consider the revised post description that was submitted to the Human Resources Management Division in 2002. In the Tribunal's view, as the revised post description had not been properly reviewed and accepted by the relevant division in accordance with the applicable rules (specifically Manual paragraph 280.333), the specialist was correct to disregard it while conducting the desk audit, referring instead to the post description on file."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874
Keywords:
grade; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that the complainant has shown no proof of bias against her on the part of the Organization. In fact it appears that the Organization was diligent in the exercise of its duty of care towards the complainant, as seen in the repeated attempts at mediation and the care in offering her multiple opportunities to contribute to the post classification process through updated job descriptions and other relevant submissions."
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; organisation's duties; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2514
100th Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it is for the competent body and, in the last resort, the executive head of the relevant organisation to grade staff members following an exercise involving the making of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment if it is shown, for example, that the competent body acted on some wrong principle or overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see Judgments 594, 1067, 1152, 1281 and 1495)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 594, 1067, 1152, 1281, 1495
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2373
97th Session, 2004
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The decision to redefine the functions of a post is the prerogative of the Director-General, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post."
Keywords:
decision; definition; discretion; executive head; post; post description; qualifications; recommendation;
Judgment 2080
92nd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 14-15
Extract:
"The Director-General, in exercise of his discretionary authority and taking into account the overall interests of the organisation, decided that the [complainant's] post [...] should be redefined and that [his] contract should not be renewed. The Tribunal accepts that the organisation was entitled to adapt to changes and to modify the job description for the given post in view of the organisation's future needs."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; contract; decision; discretion; executive head; non-renewal of contract; organisation; organisation's interest; post description; post held by the complainant; reorganisation; right;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A quantitative difference in duties rather than a difference in their nature or intrinsic importance is not a decisive criterion on which to base a difference in grade between two officials who perform exactly the same duties."
Keywords:
criteria; difference; grade; official; post; post classification; post description;
Judgment 1976
89th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, who holds a post in the general service category, requested a job description "in line with current tasks being carried out [...] at the professional level". The Tribunal considers that "as regards her request that her current tasks be classified at the professional level, this is not within the competence of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no power to direct that a particular job be classified at the professional level."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general service category; post classification; post description; professional category;
Judgment 1787
86th Session, 1999
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The qualifications expected may be just 'desirable', not requirements binding in law. But the appointing authority is not free on that account [...] to disregard the fact that some do qualify and to plump for the very one who does not, even one who in other respects has the right experience and skills. [...] Here the Organization picked someone wanting in listed qualifications which, though said to be only 'desirable', were in fact essential. It thereby fell short of the standards of objectiveness and openness that must govern appointment to a senior post in an international organisation. The process of selection cannot stand [...]" (See Judgment 1595, under 10.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; condition; criteria; discretion; flaw; post; post description; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; qualifications; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1677
84th Session, 1998
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
ITU Staff Regulation 3.8 (a) lays down two conditions regarding the payment of a special post allowance: "one is that there must be a post at a higher grade than the claimant's; the other that the claimant must be performing the duties of the post. The Union adds a third condition, that the post description must be recent. But it is wrong: there is neither a written rule nor any particular basic principle that lays down that requirement."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 3.8 (A)
Keywords:
condition; grade; organisation's duties; post description; special post allowance; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1647
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
It follows from WHO Manual paragraph II.1.30 that "grading hinges neither on quality of performance nor on seniority. The sole criteria are the duties and responsibilities of the post. And the grade cannot change unless there is a 'significant change in [their] level'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHE II.1.30 OF WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; criteria; post; post classification; post description; seniority; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
