Promotion (269, 270, 271, 945, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 666,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Promotion
Total judgments found: 166
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4778
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was promoted from grade G.6 to grade P.3, challenges what he regards as the withdrawal of the decision to take his family allowance into account when determining his step in his new grade P.3.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general service category; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general service category; professional category; promotion;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that the executive head of an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff and, therefore, the decisions that she or he takes in this area are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere in such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4552, consideration 2, 4451, consideration 6, and 3742, consideration 3). This case law also applies in the particular situation where, as in the present case, the object of the contested decision is to determine whether it is appropriate to rescind the award of a promotion to a staff member who now feels dissatisfied with it. In this regard, the complainant is, in reality, simply asking the Tribunal to replace the Secretary-General’s assessment by its own assessment of whether or not the promotion he received should be rescinded, which misconstrues the limited power of review of the Tribunal in such a case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Considerations 7-9
Extract:
The complainant concludes that the higher the grade, the higher the remuneration ought to be, so that a promotion should necessarily lead to a significant increase in pay.
However, firstly, the Tribunal notes that, as the organisation rightly points out in its submissions, the methodology that has been embodied and applied in the United Nations system for decades for determining salaries does not show a linear continuity between the responsibilities and levels of pay at the higher grades in category G and those at the lower grades in category P. Secondly, it is apparent from the submissions and the evidence that to accede to the complainant’s claim for a higher level of remuneration in his grade P.3 post than that resulting from the adjustment already awarded to him on the basis of the remuneration he received at grade G.6 would, on the contrary, amount to a deviation from the principle of equal pay for equal work when compared with other ITU staff members at grade P.3 who did not come from the General Service category.
In that regard, the Tribunal already recalled, in its Judgment 1196, consideration 19, that it is well known that different salary scales exist for the General Service category and the Professional category, which in itself neither is discriminatory nor constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment, emphasising the following:
“[A]ccording to consistent precedent the distinction between international and local staff is a fundamental one inherent in the very nature of an international organisation. It is due to the peculiar circumstances in which such organisations work and it is concurred in, with both its advantages and its drawbacks, by anyone who seeks employment with them, be it in one category of staff or in the other. Each category of staff offers career prospects and conditions of recruitment and pay that differ according to its own requirements, and a staff member may not plead breach of equal treatment if treated differently because he belongs to one category rather than to the other.”
Similarly, in Judgment 498, consideration 1, the Tribunal had made the following remarks in relation to those distinctions:
“G staff are recruited largely in [the headquarters country] or neighbouring countries. It is therefore only right that [...] their pay [...] should be in line with pay scales in [the headquarters country]. Officials in other categories, however, may come from and be required to serve anywhere in the world. [...] [The organisation] takes as its standard of comparison the best-paid national civil service. Consequently the allegation of unlawful discrimination fails.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1196
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; general service category; professional category; promotion; salary;
Judgment 4711
136th Session, 2023
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of automatic step advancement pursuant to the introduction of a new career system.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends that the new step advancement system infringed an acquired right. He alleges that in the former system he had a right to an automatic step advancement based on seniority, whilst in the new career system step advancement is based on performance and assessment of competencies. He concludes that the former automatic step advancement was a fundamental and essential term of employment in the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law on acquired rights. Namely, he recalls that Judgment 832 lays down three elements to be considered: the nature of the altered term; the reason for change; and the consequences on staff pay and benefits.
This plea must be rejected. According to the Tribunal’s case law, established for example in Judgment 61, clarified in Judgment 832 and confirmed in Judgment 986, the amendment of a provision governing an official’s situation to her or his detriment constitutes a breach of an acquired right only when such an amendment adversely affects the balance of contractual obligations, or alters fundamental terms of employment in consideration of which the official accepted an appointment, or which subsequently induced her or him to stay on. In order for there to be a breach of an acquired right, the amendment to the applicable text must relate to a fundamental and essential term of employment. Judgment 832, consideration 14, details a three-part test for determining whether the altered term is fundamental and essential. The test is as follows:
(1) The nature of the altered term: “It may be in the contract or in the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or in a decision, and whereas the contract or a decision may give rise to acquired rights the regulations and rules do not necessarily do so.”
(2) The reason for the change: “It is material that the terms of appointment may often have to be adapted to circumstances, and there will ordinarily be no acquired right when a rule or a clause depends on variables such as the cost-of-living index or the value of the currency. Nor can the finances of the body that applies the terms of appointment be discounted.”
(3) The consequence of allowing or disallowing an acquired right and the effect it will have on staff pay and benefits, and how those who plead an acquired right fare as against others.
In addition, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 4028, consideration 13, international civil servants are not entitled to have all the conditions of employment or retirement laid down in the provisions of the staff rules and regulations in force at the time of their recruitment applied to them throughout their career and retirement. Most of those conditions can be altered though depending on the nature and importance of the provision in question, staff may have an acquired right to its continued application.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 61, 832, 986, 4028
Keywords:
acquired right; promotion; step;
Judgment 4685
136th Session, 2023
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied rejection of her requests concerning the effective date of her promotion and the within-grade salary increment.
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;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; effective date; promotion;
Judgment 4480
133rd Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a personal promotion in the 2015 exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 4426
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to retroactively promote her while she was on sick leave.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion; sick leave; time bar;
Judgment 4420
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Organisation’s refusal to recalculate his reckonable previous experience.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; professional experience; promotion;
Judgment 4393
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in his total net remuneration following his promotion to a higher grade arguing that it constitutes a breach of Article 49(13) of the Service Regulations.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; promotion; salary;
Judgment 4391
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2008 promotion exercise.
Consideration 12
Extract:
Inasmuch as no evidence was provided that the Promotion Board had recommended his promotion retroactive to 2008, and keeping in mind that it is not within the Tribunal’s purview to order the promotion of an official (see Judgments 4066, consideration 11, and 4040, consideration 2), the complainant is entitled to material damages for the loss of a valuable opportunity to be promoted. The EPO will be ordered to pay the complainant a lump-sum amount equivalent to the cumulative amount of the additional salaries and all other benefits that he would have been entitled to receive through his monthly payslips, had he been promoted in the 2012 exercise, until the date of his retirement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4040, 4066
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; loss of opportunity; material damages; promotion;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the decision not to promote him was a hidden disciplinary sanction against him because he was a staff representative appointed by the Central Staff Committee as a member of the General Advisory Committee, to discourage employees from being staff representatives, is unfounded. The complainant provides no evidence, as against conjecture, to prove a nexus between the non-promotion decision and this allegation or from which it may be inferred that the decision was retaliatory (see, for example, Judgment 2907, under 23) or was actuated by prejudice.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2907
Keywords:
hidden disciplinary measure; promotion; retaliation; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s role in cases which challenge a non-promotion decision is a limited one. Staff members of an international organization do not have an automatic right to promotion. It is established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority. Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision. The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 4066, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4066
Keywords:
discretion; promotion;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Every permanent employee in the Munich Office whom the Promotion Board recommended in December 2012 for promotion from grade A3 to A4 was promoted, except the complainant. The case law states that in most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved and that even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference (see, for example, Judgment 4022, under 6). The EPO submits that the relevant difference between the complainant’s situation and that of his colleagues who were promoted was his uncertain return to work. The factual inaccuracy of this statement, and the absence of any other justification, leads the Tribunal to conclude that there was no relevant difference that warranted the different treatment involved, and that the decision not to promote the complainant was taken in breach of the principle of equal treatment or equality.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4022
Keywords:
equal treatment; promotion;
Judgment 4377
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant alleges that he was promised promotion to grade D-2.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s request for retroactive promotion to grade D-2 from 1 September 2003, the Tribunal points out that it is not for it, in any event, to order that an official be promoted (see Judgments 3999, consideration 9, and 4066, consideration 11). This claim will therefore be dismissed at the outset as irreceivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3999, 4066
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; promotion;
Judgment 4290
130th Session, 2020
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision of the Director-General not to promote her in the 2018 performance-based promotion exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalled, in Judgment 4066, consideration 3, that its case law does not guarantee to staff members of an international organization an automatic right to promotion (see Judgment 3495, under 11). It is also well established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. For this reason, such decisions are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see also Judgment 2835, under 5). Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision (see Judgment 1827, under 6). The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 1109, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1827, 2835, 3495, 4066
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 4281
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him in the 2015 promotion exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion;
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, “while every official should have some prospect of advancement within an organisation and may therefore legitimately hope to move up to a higher position one day, there is no automatic right to promotion. This right is limited, on the one hand, by the official’s seniority, qualifications, skills and performance and, on the other, by the Organisation’s administrative structure and budgetary resources” (see Judgments 3404, under 8, and 3495, under 11).
According to the same case law, an organisation enjoys wide discretion in staff promotion. For that reason, its decisions in that area are subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will intervene in such a decision only if it was taken without authority, if it was based on an error of law or fact, if a material fact was overlooked, if a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts, if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure, or if there was abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, under 5, 3279, under 11, 4019, under 2, and 4066, under 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2835, 3279, 3404, 3495, 4019, 4066
Keywords:
career; promotion;
Judgment 4178
128th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him a promotion in the 2014 professional promotion exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; promotion;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 4113
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote him and contends that the EPO breached its duty to treat him with dignity.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; grade; promotion;
Judgment 4112
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests retroactively his promotions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; promotion; retroactive promotion;
Judgment 4066
127th Session, 2019
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to promote her in the 2013 promotion exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; personal promotion; promotion;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law does not guarantee to staff members of an international organization an automatic right to promotion (see Judgment 3495, under 11). It is also well established that an organization has a wide discretion in deciding whether to promote a staff member. For this reason, such decisions are subject to limited review. The Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, some material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, under 5, and 3279, under 11). Additionally, the Tribunal has stated that since the selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the process, a person who challenges it must demonstrate a serious defect in the decision (see Judgment 1827, under 6). The breach of a procedural rule is a flaw on the basis of which a decision not to promote a staff member may be set aside (see Judgment 1109, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1827, 2835, 3279, 3495
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Consideration 11
Extract:
It is not within the Tribunal’s competence to promote the complainant to the P-4 grade. However, as the impugned decision will be set aside, the matter will be remitted to the FAO for it to reconsider the decision not to promote her to the P-4 grade in 2013.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; competence of tribunal; promotion; ratione materiae;
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.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organisation to promote a staff member (see, for example, Judgment 3370, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3370
Keywords:
order; promotion;
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.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...]The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
Keywords:
delay; promotion;
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.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...] The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
Keywords:
delay; promotion;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
