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 1207
74th Session, 1993
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal need only observe, as it has often said before (for example in Judgments 940 [...], 1016 [...] and 1025 [...]), that no staff member has any right to promotion. Even if he is expecting it, as the complainant was, he may not demand that management grant him the benefit of it from any particular date."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 940, 1016, 1025
Keywords:
career; case law; date; effective date; organisation's duties; promotion; right;
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"A distinction must be drawn between the upgrading of the complainant's post and his own promotion. Any regrading is bound to affect an organisation's structure and will therefore depend on the way in which work is organised. [...]
The fact that pending the outcome he was fulfilling duties pertaining to a more highly graded post that did not yet exist does not entitle him to compensation, let alone retroactive promotion. [...]"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 940, 1016, 1025
Keywords:
administrative delay; date; effective date; organisation's interest; personal promotion; post; post classification; promotion;
Judgment 1204
74th Session, 1993
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
The complainants object to a decision denying them so-called "out-of-career" promotions. They submit that the original decisions were taken for an unlawful reason of principle and that the organization later confirmed the decisions on quite different grounds. The organization says it merely exercised the discretion inherent in managerial prerogative and did not alter the original reasons but merely added to them. "Although the competent authority has discretion to grant or refuse the promotion of staff who qualify under the material rules, it must abide by the rules, and whatever decisions it takes will be subject to judicial review [...] so as to determine whether they pass muster the rules have to be known to everyone and an organisation may not go beyond the duly published texts and resort to secret provisions that change the thrust of the ones it intended to treat as binding. Before it takes its discretionary decision, it must compare the merits of all staff who qualify under the rules [...] CERN committed two mistakes of law. One was to apply to the complainants rules that had never been published and that it regarded as binding. The other was to defend its position ex post facto by saying that its reasons for rejecting the complainants' claims were connected with their performance, though there is no evidence of any comparative and analytical assessment of the kind that international officials are entitled to."
Keywords:
applicable law; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; equal treatment; judicial review; organisation's duties; patere legem; promotion; publication; refusal;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainants were refused the grant of a promotion. The impugned decisions are set aside and the complainants sent back to CERN for proper determination of their entitlement to promotion. They are claiming awards of damages. But "they fail to show any particular injury. If they get promotion, that, and the financial consequences, will afford them sufficient redress. If they are not promoted they will not have suffered any injury unless the new decisions are again unlawful. For the time being there is no actual injury and they have no right to compensation."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; injury; lack of injury; promotion; refusal; vexatious complaint;
Judgment 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When the Director-General's decision is not based on the results of an examination marked by an independent body, he has a wide degree of discretion in making an appointment and granting promotion. Though he is not bound by any recommendation from an advisory body, his authority does not make referral to such a body pointless. A selection body relieves him of the burden of carrying out an assessment himself. It ensures that all applications for appointment or promotion, whatever their source, shall be examined impartially and on the merits. And its report enables the Tribunal to appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw."
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; competition; discretion; further submissions; impartiality; interlocutory order; judicial review; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1171
73rd Session, 1992
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
ITU Staff Rule 3.4.2c) "says that on promotion from the general service to the professional category an official shall keep his pensionable remuneration at the level which it had reached immediately before promotion 'until that level is exceeded as a result of advancement or further promotion'. Since the complainant's promotion [...] resulted in a decrease in his pensionable remuneration [...] he was accordingly entitled to keep his pensionable remuneration at the level it had reached immediately prior to promotion".
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF RULE 3.4.2C)
Keywords:
general service category; pension; pensionable remuneration; professional category; promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1170
73rd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant disputes the method for reckoning the output of a certain category of officials. "The method is not a matter for the Promotion Board; else it would find itself revising ratings in staff reports. In point of fact there is nothing discriminatory about the method. [...] Be that as it may, if the complainant objected to the reckoning of his own output the proper course was for him to challenge his staff report and the ratings it contained. He did not do so."
Keywords:
equal treatment; performance report; promotion; promotion board; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant objects to the refusal to grant him promotion. A circular informed the staff that a promotion board would advise the President on promotions. The Tribunal holds that "the promotion board was bound to apply the criteria laid down in the circular and had no discretion to discard any of them".
Keywords:
criteria; organisation's duties; promotion; promotion board;
Judgment 1151
72nd Session, 1992
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"According to consistent precedent, a decision to appoint or promote a staff member, even though it is a matter of discretion, may be set aside, and one flaw that will be fatal is that it was taken without authority."
Keywords:
appointment; case law; competence; decision; decision-maker; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 1137
72nd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant did not get promotion at the time he believed he was entitled to. Inasmuch as the organisation promoted other candidates with less seniority than he had, he submits that it discriminated against him. "The plea of discrimination fails. It overlooks the fact that seniority merely qualifies [a candidate] for promotion and confers no right. [...] In choosing between candidates, the Promotion Board and the President are free to take into account [...] any other criteria they think appropriate."
Keywords:
criteria; equal treatment; promotion; seniority;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Only on the limited grounds often stated in the case law will the Tribunal interfere with discretionary decisions such as one to promote an official. [...] So the Tribunal will, for example, [not] review the records of the candidates a promotion board was considering".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In keeping with the scheme for "personal promotion" brought in by Circular 334, "promotion is at the Director-General's discretion, his decision is subject only to limited review, and it may not ordinarily be set aside unless there is some particular fatal flaw. Breach of a procedural rule is such a flaw."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ILO CIRCULAR 334 (SERIES 6) OF 20 JULY 1985
Keywords:
discretion; flaw; judicial review; personal promotion; procedural flaw; promotion;
Judgment 1093
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The ITU's policy is to guarantee, for staff promoted from the general service to the professional category, that the salary differential resulting from the promotion and during the year following it, as calculated in local currency, will be equivalent to at least one step in the new grade. For that purpose the Union carries out a review of the official's pay on the first anniversary of promotion, known as the "anniversary calculation". The complainant was promoted from grade G.5 to P.2. The difference between his earnings during the year after his promotion to P.2 and the amount he would have earned during the same period at G.5 being greater than a P.2 increment, there was no breach of the material rule.
Keywords:
consequence; general service category; professional category; promotion; reduction of salary; salary;
Summary
Extract:
At the time of his promotion to grade P.2 the complainant held a permanent appointment at grade G.5, as well as a fixed-term appointment at grade G.7 while drawing a special post allowance corresponding to P.2. The Tribunal holds that because he had never had a permanent appointment at G.7 his promotion was from G.5 to P.2.
Keywords:
grade; promotion; special post allowance;
Judgment 1092
70th Session, 1991
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant contests the date on which her promotion took effect.
Keywords:
promotion;
Judgment 1029
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
Article 49 of the EPO Service Regulations says that promotion shall be"by selection". What that implies is "that the president will look at the merits of each candidate for promotion, and that he will set all the candidates against each other and choose as many as the number of vacancies allows." In the instant case the Tribunal holds that there is no evidence to suggest that the President went beyond the bounds of his discretion as set in Article 49.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49 OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 1025
69th Session, 1990
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Promotion is at the Secretary General's discretion [...] It is therefore subject only to limited review and the Tribunal will ordinarily set it aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, [etc]".
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The executive head must conform to the rules he has issued because they are binding in law, and any breach of them will be a fatal flaw in his decision." The rules at issue concern the grant of promotion.
Keywords:
enforcement; judicial review; patere legem; promotion; written rule;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"The Secretary General may as a rule amend a text that sets in general terms the conditions for promotion that are to hold good in future and [...] the Tribunal has only a limited power of review over texts of that kind."
Keywords:
career; condition; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal has already declared that rules on promotion do confer an acquired right insofar as they offer staff an expectation of advancement. But the particular arrangements for the grant of promotion confer no such right because on recruitment staff cannot foretell how they will fare in their career. [...] In any event an organisation may change the rules on promotion for the sake of efficiency and so as to cope with changing circumstances."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; career; promotion;
Judgment 1016
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under the guidelines [the President] has issued the promotion boards are free to apply other criteria such as age for the purpose of assessing fitness for promotion."
Keywords:
criteria; promotion; promotion board;
Consideration 3
Extract:
In the matter of promotion two principles emerge from the case law: "one is that [the Tribunal] will neither substitute its own assessment of an official's performance for the President's nor review the merits of candidates for promotion. The other is that since the grant of promotion is and must remain at the president's discretion, the mere fact that an official may qualify for it under the rules does not confer on him any enforceable right to it."
Keywords:
condition; discretion; judicial review; promotion; work appraisal;
Judgment 1011
68th Session, 1990
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
To take account of shifts in currency rates when reckoning the pay of officials who changed categories on promotion, the ITU began to follow United Nations practice by adopting in 1988 the so-called "anniversary calculation" system. The complainant, who was promoted in 1985 from grade G.7 to P.2, is seeking to have her pay so reviewed. On 28 January 1986 she wrote to the chief of personnel objecting to the loss of salary she suffered as a result of promotion. On 26 May 1988 she appealed to the Appeal Board. The Tribunal holds that the memorandum of 28 January 1986 cannot be construed either in form or in substance as a request for review under Rule 11.1.2 but was merely a written claim under Rule 3.17.1. Her appeal of 26 May 1988 was patently out of time and the complaint is therefore irreceivable.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: RULES 3.17.1 AND 11.1.1.2 OF THE ITU STAFF REGULATIONS AND STAFF RULES
Keywords:
consequence; formal requirements; general service category; internal appeal; professional category; promotion; receivability of the complaint; reduction of salary; salary; time bar;
Judgment 994
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Three successive decisions to promote the complainant were taken: a promotion by direct selection from grade G.6 to P.3 as from 1 July 1986; a personal promotion from G.6 to G.7 as from 1 January 1985 and the outcome of a procedure which led to his post being regraded from G.6 to P.3 effective on 1 February 1984. The complainant challenges the Administration's decision to treat the regrading decision as void. The regrading decision was accepted by the complainant and showed no flaw. As it became final on the expiry of the time limit for challenge, the Administration may not go back on it.
Keywords:
condition; cumulative decisions; flaw; personal promotion; post classification; professional category; promotion; time limit; withdrawal of decision;
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was granted three concurrent promotions: the first by direct selection from grade G.6 to P.3 with effect from 1 July 1986; the second by personal promotion from G.6 to G.7 with effect from 1 January 1986; and the third as a result of the regrading of his post from G.6 to P.3 with effect from 1 February 1984. The Administration said he could choose between two options: either his promotion to P.3 as from 1 February 1984 would be deemed to have cancelled the earlier ones and, in keeping with Article 3.4.4 of the Staff Regulations, his pensionable remuneration would stay at the level it had reached at that date; or else he might keep the personal promotion and his pensionable remuneration would be at the level it had reached at 1 July 1986. The complainant having refused to choose between the two options, the Administration applied the second one. Insofar as that decision conflicts with the decision to regrade his post P.3 as from 1 February 1984 it cannot stand.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 3.4.4 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
consequence; cumulative decisions; general service category; pension; pensionable remuneration; post classification; professional category; promotion; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 991
68th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"The complainant must have known when he applied for leave that he would have 'non-active status' and that that would affect his entitlement to pay and to the other benefits of employment."
Keywords:
career; compassionate leave; consequence; leave; promotion; salary; special leave;
Judgment 966
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3, Summary
Extract:
The complainant argues that because she had 55 months' seniority at step 11, the upper limit, in her original grade, she should have been granted two further steps on promotion. The Tribunal observes that the Staff Regulations do not provide for the calculation of notional steps in dealing with promotion.
Keywords:
consequence; promotion; seniority; top step;
Judgment 962
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Paragraph 4 of Circular 34 of 15 May 1979 says that "for the purpose of calculating seniority for advancement in the prescribed steps within the relevant grade, the period of part-time work will be taken into account in the same way as in the case of normal full-time work". The Tribunal holds that the EPO's practice of counting part-time work towards seniority for promotion on a pro-rata basis on the principle that promotion is a reward for service rendered is in no way at odds with the guidelines in the material circular as the complainant mistakenly argues.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 4 OF CIRCULAR 34 OF 15 MAY 1979
Keywords:
consequence; difference; part-time employment; professional experience; promotion; proportionality; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 957
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends that his professional experience was not properly reckoned in accordance with Circular 144 of 2 September 1985. He alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as his seniority was lower than that granted to someone with equivalent professional experience recruited as an A3 examiner. His plea fails "because the material provisions of the service regulations deal with promotion within the organisation as distinct from the attributions of grade and step on appointment: the comparison he is drawing is between staff members who are not in the same position in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 953
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The organisation has not discriminated against the complainant. Appointment is different from promotion and different rules may apply in determining the step due on appointment and the step due on promotion."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.2 to grade A.3 as from 1 March 1987. He submits that the promotion should have taken effect as from 1 August 1985, the date by which his credited experience had come to eight years, in accordance with point ii.2 of Circular 144. However, as required by Article 49[7] of the EPO Service Regulations, the complainant also had to have at least two years' service in his grade in the office in order to qualify for promotion. As the complainant did not meet the latter requirement until 1 March 1987, the Tribunal held that the impugned decision was correct.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49.7 OF EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS; POINT II.2 OF EPO CIRCULAR 144 OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1985
Keywords:
condition; date; effective date; grade; professional experience; promotion; seniority;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
