|
|
 |
|
|
Personal promotion (273,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Personal promotion
Total judgments found: 26
1, 2 | next >
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.
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is true that, in the same judgment, in consideration 4, the Tribunal reiterated that, under its case law, “an organisation enjoys wide discretion with regard to staff promotion” and that “[f]or this reason, such decisions are subject to only limited review”. However, as is made clear in Judgment 3322, consideration 4, such a decision may nevertheless “be quashed [...] if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 3, 2668, under 11, or 3084, under 13)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2668, 3084, 3322, 4252
Keywords:
discretion; personal promotion;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 4252
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former official of the ILO, challenges the decision not to award him a personal promotion in the 2011 exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; personal promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, an organisation enjoys wide discretion with regard to staff promotion. For this reason, such decisions are subject to only limited review. However, the Tribunal must ascertain whether 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 procedure, or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2835, consideration 5, 3279, consideration 11, and 4066, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2835, 3279, 4066
Keywords:
discretion; personal promotion;
Considerations 5 & 7
Extract:
Under Article 6.8.2, paragraph 2, of the Staff Regulations, there are two tracks to personal promotion[.]
[A]s paragraph 4(b) of IGDS No. 125 emphasises, [the second track] “is intended to reward length of service” and only requires that the official’s performance has been “satisfactory”.
For the purposes of the second track, satisfactory performance is, under Article 6.8.2, paragraph 3, of the Staff Regulations, appraised in the light of the official’s overall performance in the grade.
However, the Joint Panel’s report shows that it assessed the complainant’s performance only on the basis of his last 13 years of service. The Joint Panel thus committed an error of law. In this case, the complainant had been in his grade since 1988, thus for 23 years in 2011. His performance had been assessed as meritorious or even particularly meritorious up to 2005, that is, over a period of 17 years. As the JAAB correctly pointed out, his performance over the entire period was hence satisfactory overall.
Keywords:
personal promotion;
Judgment 4105
127th Session, 2019
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 context of the 2014 exercise.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; personal promotion;
Judgment 4098
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 5
Extract:
As the Tribunal held in Judgment 3043, under 18, a personal promotion “should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3043
Keywords:
compensatory measure; personal 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;
Judgment 3323
117th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who considers that he met the conditions for receiving personal promotion before the scheme was suspended because of the organisation’s severe financial situation, impugns the decision not to reassess his case.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; personal promotion;
Judgment 3322
117th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision not to grant her personal promotion.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; personal promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already had occasion to find in Judgment 3063 concerning the complainant’s complaint directed against the outcome of the 2006 exercise, by its very nature a decision regarding personal promotion lies at the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation and is therefore subject to only limited review. For this reason, it may be quashed only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1815, under 3, 2668, under 11, or 3084, under 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1815, 2668, 3063, 3084
Keywords:
judicial review; personal promotion;
Judgment 3321
117th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision not to grant him personal promotion.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; personal promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Contrary to the complainant’s submissions, it is plain from the evidence in the file that the Joint Panel did study the possibility of
granting him personal promotion under both of the tracks provided for in Article 6.8.2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Staff Regulations and that the examination made under the second track was based on the applicable criteria – which were less stringent in terms of professional merit. In addition, the complainant is wrong to contend that no reason was given for the recommendation not to grant him such promotion, since the Joint Panel’s report, which was produced by the ILO during the proceedings, clearly explains the grounds for this position.
Keywords:
personal promotion;
Judgment 3280
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests that the 2010 promotion exercise, which was allegedly cancelled for budgetary reasons, be held.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; condition; discretion; personal promotion; right;
Judgment 3251
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant's request to be included on the list of eligible candidates for personal promotion was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that the ILO conducted the 2008 personal promotion exercise in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The ILO properly applied the new Office Procedure (No. 125, which took effect from 22 October 2009) to the 2008 personal promotion exercise. [...] Considering that the 2008 promotion exercise was launched after Office Procedure No. 125 took effect, the ILO was correct to follow its provisions for the promotion exercise, and not those of Circular No. 334, Series 6, as the complainant suggests. The complainant did not have any acquired right to the 2008 promotion exercise, promotions being considered “an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal” (see Judgments 2668, under 11, 1500, under 4, 1109, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Office Procedure No. 125; Circular No. 334, Series 6
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1109, 1500, 1973, 2668
Keywords:
acquired right; condition; discretion; interpretation; judicial review; organisation's duties; personal promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; personal promotion;
Judgment 3084
112th Session, 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The fact that a decision to grant an ad personam promotion lies at the discretion of the Director-General does not preclude appellate review, albeit a limited review of whether the decision involves an error of law or fact or a failure to have regard to a material fact; whether a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; whether the decision was taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure or whether there was an abuse of authority (see Judgment 2834, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2834
Keywords:
abuse of power; breach; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grounds; judicial review; mistake of law; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; personal promotion; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 3063
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; personal promotion;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal again notes, as it did in consideration 6 of Judgment 2837 concerning the complainant’s first complaint, that by its very nature the decision whether or not to grant a personal promotion is one which is taken at the discretion of the Director-General. As such, it is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, Judgments 1500, under 5, 1815, under 3, and 2668, under 11). According to this case law, the Tribunal will set such a decision aside only if it shows certain flaws, such as a formal or procedural flaw, or a mistake of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, if it was ultra vires, if there was misuse of authority, or if a conclusion drawn from the evidence is obviously wrong.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1815, 2668, 2837
Keywords:
judicial review; personal promotion;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. 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 (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2837
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 7-8
Extract:
The complainant was not granted the personal promotion she was eligible for and the Organization did not respect its obligation to publish the list of officials who were granted such a promotion.
"Contrary to the Organization, which maintains that its failure to publish the list could not have caused any injury to the complainant and in no way influenced the decision to refuse her such a promotion, the Tribunal considers that non publication of the list in question deprived the complainant of information that she might have found useful in filing a request for review [...].
The impugned decision must therefore be set aside [...], and the case must be referred back to the Organization so that it may publish the list of officials who were granted a personal promotion [...]. The complainant may, if she so wishes, file a request for review within a fixed period from the date of publication of the list in question."
Keywords:
breach; consequence; organisation's duties; personal promotion; publication; refusal; time limit; written rule;
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 2668
104th Session, 2008
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"Personal promotion constitutes advancement on merit and is supposed to reward a staff member for services of a quality higher than those ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973
Keywords:
condition; discretion; judicial review; personal promotion;
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 2086
92nd Session, 2002
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
In order to be awarded a personal promotion the complainant must have completed 18 years of continuous service under a fixed-term or permanent contract. "The [organisation] is arguing that [...] in determining whether the complainant fulfilled [such a] requirement [...] reference must be made to clauses of the contracts which came into force unopposed, [including] short-term contracts [...] The approach is too rigid [...] The issue was [not] one of applying or interpreting the complainant's early appointments [...] It is a matter of applying a rule which is currently in force and which concerns the legal nature of former contractual relationships between the parties. In other words, in the light of the current rule, what type of appointment did the early contracts establish? It should be noted that the name they were given will not necessarily express the actual relationship".
Keywords:
applicable law; condition; contract; criteria; definition; effective date; enforcement; fixed-term; interpretation; permanent appointment; personal promotion; provision; reckoning; short-term; working hours;
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 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;
Considerations 3 & 9
Extract:
Personal promotion is a means of letting a staff member have a grade higher than the one his post bears: see Judgment 1500 [...], under 4.
Circular 334 cited above used to say how staff might qualify and what the procedure was. Now there is Article 6.8.2 of the Staff Regulations as well.
[...]
The complainant had a good record and is understandably disappointed. But that affords no grounds for declaring unlawful the refusal to grant him an exceptional benefit for which the qualifications are stringent.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500
Keywords:
personal promotion;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
