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 3855
124th Session, 2017
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain his position at the same grade.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3835
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who received a special post allowance, challenges the denial of her request for the reclassification of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3834
124th Session, 2017
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 allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot order the Organization retroactively to reclassify the complainant’s post, as she requests, since it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to issue injunctions against organisations (see Judgment 3506, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3506
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Consideration 2
Extract:
In accordance with the Tribunal’s case law, a decision concerning the classification of a post is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will set aside such a decision only if it has been taken without authority, has been made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, has 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, Judgment 3589, under 4, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589
Keywords:
discretion; post classification;
Judgment 3833
124th Session, 2017
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; internal remedies exhausted; post classification;
Judgment 3782
123rd Session, 2017
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the classification of their posts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; delay; delay in internal procedure; post classification;
Judgment 3764
123rd Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of his request for a review of the classification of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3726
123rd Session, 2017
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.
Consideration 20
Extract:
[The Tribunal] can grant damages if it is not disputed that the complainant performed work beyond her current grade (see, for example, Judgment 3284, considerations 14 and 17). The Tribunal therefore determines that the complainant is entitled to material damages for the tasks that she performed above her G.5 grade, and that she is entitled to moral damages for the prejudice that she suffered by IOM’s breach.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
grade; material damages; moral injury; order; post classification; reclassification; retroactivity;
Considerations 19-20
Extract:
IOM has not disputed that the five subject tasks that were assigned to the complainant occasioned her to perform duties and responsibilities which were above her G.5 grade. An international organization is required to respect the grading structure and grades of its staff members. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 808, consideration 22:
“In sum the Director-General may assign the staff as the Organisation’s interests require provided he respects their grades and the grading structure. Transfer does not depend on their consent and they must be willing to put their hand to any work that suits their grade, their qualifications and the terms of their appointment.”
The complainant seems to invite the Tribunal to reclassify her post in relation to her performance of the subject tasks, but the Tribunal has no authority to do so (see Judgment 3284, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification;
Judgment 3699
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him to a Senior Advisor post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is to no avail that the EPO attempts to show that the complainant’s duties were of grade A6 level. First, it invites the Tribunal to interpret the job description appended to the Service Regulations liberally as, in the defendant’s view, it would not be possible for the Office to perform its functions properly “if it were obliged to apply the generic post descriptions strictly to the letter, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case in question”. Next, it poses the question, tailored to this particular case, of “whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant’s new role was reasonably commensurate with his grade”, and not that of whether it corresponded exactly to grade A6 duties. Lastly, it asserts that “the strategic responsibilities inherent in the new post of Senior Advisor for planning and preparation of the unitary patent, though involving no management responsibilities, were nevertheless at the same level as those of a grade A6 post”. These inconsistent arguments, submitted by the defendant to convince the Tribunal that the complainant’s new duties were at grade A6 level, poorly disguise the fact that this was not at all the case. The defendant itself acknowledges in its submissions that “the complainant’s new role did not entail all of the characteristics of a grade A6 post according to the generic description provided in the Service Regulations”. The Tribunal concludes that the complainant’s new duties were not commensurate with grade A6. The complainant did not run a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields; he was neither a Principal Director nor a Chairman of a Board of Appeal; he could not take decisions in particularly difficult or important cases. Hence, the contested transfer decision must, as the complainant requests, be ruled unlawful.
Keywords:
post classification; reassignment;
Judgment 3667
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he was not promoted during the 2013 promotion exercise.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations establishes the exclusion principle which is challenged by the complainant, who has reached the highest grade in the bracket to which his current post belongs. This principle is consistent with the aims of the administrative reform carried out in 2008, namely to end the practice of automatic promotion while not ruling out the possibility of making exceptions in order to enable particularly well-qualified officials to move up to a higher grade in the next bracket.
In the structure introduced by the administrative reform which entered into force at Eurocontrol on 1 July 2008, officials are classed in hierarchical grade brackets, each of which corresponds to a clearly defined category of functions. In the same way that an official who has reached the pinnacle of her or his career can no longer hope for promotion, a Eurocontrol official who has reached the top of her or his grade bracket does not, in principle, have any possibility of moving into a higher grade.
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification; reorganisation;
Judgment 3598
121st Session, 2016
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to remunerate him at the P-3 level in light of the outcome of a review of the classification of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3589
121st Session, 2016
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns PAHO’s rejection of his request for reclassification of his post at the P.4 level.
Consideration 4
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). 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)."
Keywords:
post classification;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Much of the complainant’s legal argument addresses how he believes the HRM Classification Team erred in its approach. For example the complainant challenges the basis upon which the HRM Classification Team rejected the suitability of the comparator post (Post .0231) he had advanced in support of the reclassification of his post. But issues such as these are the essence of the discretionary evaluation undertaken in the process of classifying or reclassifying a post. They are not issues with which the Tribunal engages unless there is some manifest error of substance in that process of evaluation."
Keywords:
manifest error; post classification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; post classification;
Judgment 3585
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a decision to dismiss her internal appeal against her performance appraisal reports and the reclassification of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; performance report; post classification;
Judgment 3583
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a WHO staff member assigned to WHO’s India Country Office, challenges the decision not to accept his claims for the retroactive reclassification of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3568
121st Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following an administrative reform at Eurocontrol, the complainants challenge the rejection of their requests for reclassification.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3275
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; joinder; post classification;
Judgment 3490
120th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; delay; disclosure of evidence; internal appeal; post classification;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]n Judgment 3273, under 6, the Tribunal had occasion to reiterate that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgment 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:
judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Consideration 30
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the retroactive reclassification of the post […] and to order the IAEA to pay material damages equivalent to the salary differential […] taking into account step increases […]. First, the reclassification of a post is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal as the authority to do so rests exclusively with the Director General and as delegated. Second, granting the request for the material damages would amount to the Tribunal substituting its own assessment for that of the competent authority contrary to well settled case law (for example, see Judgments 2284, under 9, and 3284, under 12)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2284, 3284
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order; post classification; reclassification;
Consideration 31
Extract:
As the Director General’s decisions [...] are based on a fundamentally flawed process and involve an error of law, they will be set aside. The IAEA will be ordered to have the job classification of the complainant’s former post based on its 2 December 2008 job description reviewed by an independent classifier within three months of the delivery of this judgment. If the review results in a reclassification of the post to grade G-6, the IAEA will be obliged to pay the complainant the salary differential between a G-5 and G-6 grade, taking into account step increases, effective March 2003, plus interest at 5 per cent per annum.
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3418
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal recognized the moral injury caused to the complainant and determined the amount of compensation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; grade; post classification;
Judgment 3374
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal set aside for procedural flaw the impugned decision rejecting the complainant’s request for the reclassification of his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3352
118th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The classification of a post constitutes an act of technical evaluation and “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, the grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation. It depends on an evaluation of the nature of the work performed and the level of the responsibilities pertaining to the post which can be conducted only by persons with relevant training and experience. It follows that grading decisions are subject to only limited review and that the Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment of a post for that of the Organisation. A decision of this kind 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, Judgments 1281, under 2, or 2514, under 13).” (See Judgment 2927, under 5.) In the present case, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the post evaluation involve a manifestly mistaken conclusion, and the complainants have not established that the methodology adopted for all B/C category posts was technically flawed. In effect, the complainants are asking the Tribunal to go beyond its remit and to substitute its choice of methodology for the technical evaluation. This, the Tribunal will not do for the reasons detailed above."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281, 2514, 2927
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3350
118th Session, 2014
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision rejecting her request for readjustment of her annual basic salary and reclassification of her post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"[I]t should be noted that in the area of post classification the Tribunal leaves a considerable degree of discretion to organisations. It cannot simply substitute its own assessment for theirs. Decisions taken in this area are subject to only limited review, and can be set aside only if they were taken without authority, show some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlook some material fact, draw clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or involve an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 3273, under 6, and Judgment 2581, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3294
116th Session, 2014
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to refuse to reclassify one of her former posts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; reasonable time; right to reply;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
