Judgment No. 4193
Decision
1. The EPO shall pay the complainant additional compensation in the amount of 5,000 euros.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; post classification
Consideration 1
Extract:
The Vice-President accepted the unanimous recommendation by the IAC to pay the complainant 2,000 euros in damages. He however rejected the further recommendation by the majority to carry out a reassessment of the complainant’s current post to clarify whether its grading was correct, basing the new assessment on the functions and tasks which she had performed since her request for review in 2005. The Tribunal notes that it was within the purview of the IAC to make this recommendation in its endeavour to resolve the dispute (see Judgments 3703, consideration 6, and 3318, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3318, 3703
Keywords
internal appeals body
Consideration 2
Extract:
[O]n consistent precedent the basic applicable principles where the reclassification of a post is challenged have been stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, for example:
“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).”
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294
Keywords
post classification; reclassification
Consideration 6
Extract:
Inasmuch as it is within the authority of the President to determine the grade of a post, the Tribunal does not have the competence to make an order which the complainant seeks that it upgrade her post [...] retroactively [...].
Keywords
competence of tribunal; order; post classification
|
