Post classification (259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Post classification
Total judgments found: 137
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 4306
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date which has been set for the retroactive reclassification of her post and the undue delay in the reclassification procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 4273
130th Session, 2020
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant submits that her reassignment to the post of Senior Advisor violated WHO’s post classification standards. She presents arguments and a narrative that are highly technical to support this assertion and essentially invites the Tribunal to undertake a technical assessment of that evidence. The Tribunal has consistently stated that such an exercise falls within the purview of persons whose expertise by training and experience fits them to undertake it (see, for example, Judgments 4024, consideration 3, and 4083, consideration 8). It is however within the Tribunal’s purview to determine, as stated in Judgment 3488, consideration 3, whether in keeping with its duty of care to the complainant, in reassigning her WHO/UNAIDS showed due regard, in both form and substance, for her dignity, particularly by providing her with work of the same level as that which she performed in her previous post and matching her qualifications. That is, whether WHO/UNAIDS ensured that the responsibilities that attached to her new post were comparable, on an objective basis, to the level of the functions that she performed in her previous post (see, for example, Judgment 1343, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 3488, 4024, 4083
Keywords:
duty of care; post classification; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The applicable regulatory provisions with regard to the complainant’s first and second grounds will be referred to as necessary in this judgment. It suffices at this juncture to recall the basic guiding principles from the case law. The following was stated in Judgment 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9:
“7. In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
‘It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).’
8. As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
‘It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.’
9. The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
[...]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589, 3764, 4000
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment 4221
129th Session, 2020
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The basic guiding principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning classification of posts were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9:
“7. In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
‘It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).’
8. As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
‘It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.’
9. The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
[...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589, 3764, 4000
Keywords:
discretion; post classification;
Consideration 15
Extract:
[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s remit to conduct an analysis of the posts with which the complainant seeks to compare her post for the subject purpose (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; post classification;
Judgment 4193
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Inasmuch as it is within the authority of the President to determine the grade of a post, the Tribunal does not have the competence to make an order which the complainant seeks that it upgrade her post [...] retroactively [...].
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[O]n consistent precedent the basic applicable principles where the reclassification of a post is challenged have been stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, for example:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4186
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.
Consideration 6
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4164
128th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he basic guiding principles where the classification of a post is at issue were stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment 4144
128th Session, 2019
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Finally, the Tribunal deals with the plea under (h) according to which the complainant’s 2016 PER was flawed as he did not have a specific job description on the basis of which his performance could be assessed, as provided for in Staff Rule 105.1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Organization should have a specific job description for each post and that the performance should be evaluated on the basis of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the job description, but it also notes that a general job classification standard, approved by the Director-General, exists. Indeed, Staff Rule 107.3 provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of each post in grades 1-12 inclusive shall be evaluated on the basis of job classification standards approved by the Director-General”. The complainant’s 2016 performance was evaluated based on the job classification standard for his post and grade and on the work objectives indicated by the supervisor. Moreover his underperformance, relating mostly to his interactions with his colleagues and supervisors, was not linked to the performance of specific duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the JAB’s finding that the absence of a comprehensive job description and/or specific benchmarks in this case does not constitute a procedural flaw affecting the lawfulness of the 2016 PER is correct.
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Judgment 4102
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; duration of appointment; grade; post classification; titularization;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal cannot order the Organization to reclassify the complainant’s post since this is a discretionary decision to be made by the Organization.
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; discretion; post classification;
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.
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;
Judgment 4083
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2614, consideration 11, “[i]t is not in dispute that a classification review, a highly technical exercise, must be conducted by an individual having the requisite training and experience”. It is also clear in the case law that the required training and experience is in the area of classification and evaluation. This is reflected in Judgment 3479, consideration 5, where the Tribunal stated that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task [...]”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2614, 3479
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8).” (See Judgment 3589, consideration 4.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 4040
126th Session, 2018
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he duties and responsibilities of a post are the focus of a reclassification exercise, rather than the performance of the incumbent in the post.
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment 4026
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification;
Judgment 4024
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organization to reclassify a post (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834
Keywords:
order; post classification;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In Judgment 3589, where the reclassification of a post was challenged, the Tribunal stated the following at consideration 4:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4000
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post at grade P-4.
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
“It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.”
The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
equal treatment; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3999
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3921
125th Session, 2018
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges modifications to the grading and salary structure.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observed in relation to the arguments advanced by the complainants in those proceedings, that they raised issues of a very technical nature and similar considerations applied as in Judgment 3273, under 6, where the Tribunal noted that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation. Such a decision cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2581).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment 3912
125th Session, 2018
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Consideration 12
Extract:
It is convenient [...] to set out the guiding principles in a case in which the classification of a post is challenged. They were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 3589, consideration 4:
“It is well established 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, had been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, was made having overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion had been drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 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, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation (or the person acting on her or his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3886
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The post that the complainant was temporarily occupying was graded at the P.5 level and the job description and list of duties pertaining to that post were commensurate with the P.5 grading. As such, there was no reason to request a job grading review. The complainant himself held grade P.4, and was temporarily acting at the P.5 level, with commensurate compensation, and was expected to return to a P.4 post following the completion of the temporary assignment [...].
Keywords:
post classification;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
