Judgment No. 4164
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.
reclassification; complaint dismissed
It is well established by the case law that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the staff member concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; that they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and the Tribunal to exercise its power of review, and that how extensive those reasons need be will depend on the circumstances (see, for example, Judgment 3772, under 10).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3772
motivation; administrative decision
The Tribunal has consistently stated that when the executive head of an organisation adopts the recommendations of an internal appeal body, she or he is under no obligation to give any further reasons in her or his decision than those given by the appeal body itself.
[T]he basic guiding principles where the classification of a post is at issue were stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4:
“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).”
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589