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
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The Tribunal rejects the complainant's allegation of unequal treatment. The allegation is based on the fact that individuals having less seniority and lower-rated staff reports were invited to the assessment centre. According to the vacancy note, a candidate was expected to demonstrate the ability to manage a directorate comprising 25 to 30 examiners; particular attention would be paid to management potential, and a candidate would be assessed on the basis of his or her ability to manage, resolve disputes, implement policies, and communicate and interact with others. As these managerial skills are not a function of seniority or the requisite skills of an examiner, it cannot be said that preferring candidates with potential managerial skills over those with greater seniority or higher ratings as examiners constitutes unequal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; criteria; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; seniority;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited judicial review. That is, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a 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 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
Keywords:
appointment; breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's plea that the decision not to invite him to an assessment was not based on objective and transparent criteria and was arbitrary appears to be grounded on the complainant's view that other less meritorious and less senior candidates were invited to participate in the assessment centre. Given that a key requirement identified in the vacancy note was managerial skills, in the absence of some evidence showing that the complainant possesses managerial ability or that he has the potential to be a good manager, the complainant's assertion is speculative at best."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; evidence; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 2809
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
"The Tribunal has consistently held that a good performance record does not in itself justify selecting one candidate rather than another for a promotion or for the award of a post. The opinion of the author of an annual appraisal cannot be substituted for the conclusions of a selection board which, in this case, comprised representatives of the department head concerned, two human resources coordinators and two experts from another department, and which was responsible for selecting the candidates who had to be ranked as the best for the award of an indefinite contract [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2040
Keywords:
appointment; competition; decision; performance report; promotion; qualifications; rating; selection board;
Judgment 2770
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Considerations of fairness and justice apply to merit promotions as well as to promotions resulting from reclassification."
Keywords:
equity; grade; personal promotion; post classification; promotion;
Judgment 2706
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, who was sexually harassed by her supervisor, wants the Tribunal to order that she be promoted. "[T]he Organization is of course right in saying that the compensation for her injuries should not take the form of being granted a higher grade. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; definition; difference; harassment; injury; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; promotion; qualifications; request by a party; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;
Judgment 2535
101st Session, 2006
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In the complainant's case, the post he was assigned to [...] was classified as P-5 as of 9 September 1999. [...] However, apparently because the budget did not provide funds for the post until January 2000, he was not in fact promoted until 1 March 2000. The lack of budgetary provision is not a reason which can be validly invoked by an international organisation to deny a staff member a promotion to which he or she would otherwise have a right and to deny him or her the salary which is commensurate with the duties of the post occupied."
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; date; delay; effect; grade; organisation's duties; post; promotion; refusal; right; salary;
Judgment 2490
100th Session, 2006
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[T]he executive head of an organisation has discretionary authority not only to promote someone from one grade to another but also to say what place he shall hold in his new grade (see Judgment 313, under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 313
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; grade; official; organisation; promotion;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2272
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
A rule, "approved by the Administrative Council, [cannot] be called into question by the President. It is true that, when deciding to promote or not to promote a permanent employee, the President enjoys discretionary authority, subject to the Tribunal¿s limited power of review. Within the bounds of this limited power of review, however, the Tribunal considers whether decisions referred to it are not flawed by abuse of authority or error of law. In the present case, the complainant argues rightly that by refusing to apply to his case a rule which had been approved by the Administrative Council, despite the fact that he met the necessary requirements, the President committed an error of law and abused his authority."
Keywords:
abuse of power; condition; discretion; enforcement; executive body; executive head; interpretation; judicial review; limits; misuse of authority; promotion; refusal; repeal; written rule;
Judgment 2263
95th Session, 2003
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The question to be resolved is that of whether, for the purposes of service order No. 99 [which defines the conditions and formalities governing the granting of a personal promotion], the period in excess of the 12-month maximum duration stipulated for short-term contracts should be taken into account in calculating the 18 years of continuous service. The answer is necessarily affirmative. [...] Once [the first 12-month period] had elapsed, the complainant must be considered to have been in service [...], even in the absence of a provision to that effect and taking into account the contracts he was granted thereafter. Regarding the [one month] break in service which occurred [subsequently], it is necessary to establish whether this prevented the complainant from completing the 18 years of continuous service [...] The Tribunal considers that it did not. The evidence on file, and particularly an affidavit produced by the complainant as an annex to his written submissions, shows that the break imposed on the complainant was justified only by the fact that he was employed under short-term contracts. since the Tribunal has determined that the complainant must be deemed to have been in service from 17 November 1982 onwards, the break in question must be viewed as a period of leave."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: SERVICE ORDER No. 99
Keywords:
continuance of operations; contract; duration of appointment; fixed-term; interpretation; leave; no provision; personal promotion; promotion; reckoning; seniority; short-term; successive contracts; unpaid leave; validation of service;
Judgment 2221
95th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"It is well settled that a promotion decision is a discretionary decision which can only be challenged on limited grounds. Moreover, it is settled that mere satisfaction of necessary criteria does not ordinarily confer a right to promotion. [...] It follows that the [competent authorities] were entitled to have regard, in determining whether to backdate the complainant's promotion, to all matters pertaining to his work performance, [including] his staff reports, even though the [applicable] guidelines made no reference to such reports."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; applicable law; case law; competence; consequence; criteria; decision; discretion; elements; exception; grounds; judicial review; limits; organisation; performance report; promotion; qualifications; right;
Judgment 2187
94th Session, 2003
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot endorse the complainant's view: an employee whose name does not appear on a list of promoted staff members is naturally entitled to challenge the implied decision to exclude him or her from that list. To grant employees the possibility of contesting such decisions without limit of time would mean, in effect, that decisions communicated to staff in accordance with Article 31 of the Service Regulations and published in an official document, not only with a view to informing employees of their promotion but also so as to enable those who consider themselves to have been wrongly excluded from the list to exercise their rights, could be challenged indefinitely.
The appeal filed by the complainant on 16 June 2000, which concerned only the refusal to grant a promotion for 1999, was filed after the three-month deadline stipulated in Article 108(2) of the Service Regulations. The complainant raises arguments which may excuse her delay in appealing to the competent authority, and which the Organisation ought to have taken into account on the grounds of equity; but the Tribunal, though sympathetic to these considerations, does not consider them to provide sufficient grounds for rejecting the plea of irreceivability entered by the Organisation.
Keywords:
implied decision; promotion;
Judgment 2173
94th Session, 2003
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant wants to be promoted to the "exceptional advancement grade" of his career path. "Although the complainant's competence and standard of work were acknowledged and his appraisal reports were consistently good, those responsible in his division and sector did not see fit to propose him for exceptional advancement, which is granted to very few. Such promotion being discretionary, the organization may refuse it without incurring censure unless the refusal was based on mistakes of fact or of law [...] or on an abuse of authority [...] or unless essential facts were overlooked or blatantly wrong conclusions drawn from the evidence."
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; performance report; promotion; satisfactory service;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In a selection for a post, the most worthy candidates are selected 'in', i.e. to become members of staff, whereas in a mutually agreed separation exercise these are the very people who are most likely to be selected 'out' i.e. not to be released, in accordance with the requirements of the service. The interest of the organisation, which is paramount in each case, requires that the best candidates be employed and promoted in the first instance, and that they be retained in the organisation's service in the second."
Keywords:
agreed termination; appointment; candidate; competition; organisation; organisation's interest; post; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 2076
91st Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant was promoted with retroactive effect. "The complainant claims interest on the amounts the organization owes him. [Since it] agreed to promote him to G.5 with retroactive effect to 1 September 1997 [...] it should have paid him each month from that date the salary and entitlements corresponding to grade G.5. He is therefore entitled to interest, which the Tribunal sets at 8 per cent a year on those monthly earnings from each due date as from 1 September 1997."
Keywords:
date; debt; effective date; grade; interest on damages; promotion; request by a party; salary; tribunal;
Judgment 2053
91st Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant was on leave without pay for a period of 2 years and 8 months. There being no suitable post at the end of this period, this leave was extended for another 2 years. "What the complainant asked for [at the date of her reintegration] was the recalculation of her reckonable experience and her grade; in other words she was seeking promotion as a result of experience gained while on unpaid leave. Promotion is carefully regulated under Article 49 [of the Service Regulations]. This article provides for six different types of promotion, but there is no provision for promotion for having gained additional experience while on leave. Nor is there provision for any recalculation of the calculation made on recruitment. This claim fails."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; special leave; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2006
90th Session, 2001
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant contends that based on a recently published circular, his promotion should have been made retroactive to the date he took up his new duties. "However, to give retroactive effect to [the] circular would not be possible since according to customary methods of interpretation any action prescribed in a text is deemed to be of immediate effect. There is no presumption of retroactive effect.' (Judgment 742 [...]). Indeed, there can be no retroactive application of the rights sought by the complainant, and his status results only from the publication of the circular in question. The charge of arbitrariness would be tenable if there were no basis for applying the circular to the case of the complainant, but, as shown above, the scope of the text explicitly covered his situation."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 742
Keywords:
bias; date; effective date; general principle; interpretation; non-retroactivity; promotion; publication; right; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1973
89th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal has always held that personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward someone for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. The granting of personal promotion is a discretionary decision which, as firm precedent has it, is subject to only limited review and will stand unless it shows a fatal flaw. In a case such as the present one, in which the general rules regarding personal promotions have been adopted and communicated to the staff, the appointing authority is bound by these rules and the Tribunal will consider any violation of them to be a fatal flaw."
Keywords:
breach; case law; discretion; executive head; flaw; judicial review; limits; patere legem; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; discretion; exception; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; refusal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The [...] ground of alleged irreceivability[,that the decision to promote a colleague did not adversely affect the complainant,] is [...] untenable. [The two staff members] were at the same grade, in the same career stream, and both are entitled to expect that promotions will only be made fairly and objectively, based on merit and in accordance with law."
Keywords:
career; cause of action; decision; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 1827
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
Judgment 1815
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Board responsible for appraising the complainant's application for personal promotion had put forward a negative recommendation. "To ensure due process both in internal proceedings and before the Tribunal the staff member must get any items of information material to the outcome. And one such item is the names of the Advisory Body's members. Who they are may of course affect its reasoning and the weight its report carries, and so the staff member should be allowed at least to comment. That is why the Tribunal will acknowledge a complainant's right to know who sat in his case."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; composition of the internal appeals body; duty to inform; organisation's duties; personal promotion; promotion; refusal; right to reply; staff member's interest;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
