L'OIT est une institution spécialisée des Nations-Unies
ILO-fr-strap
Plan du site | Contact English
> Page d'accueil > Triblex: base de données sur la jurisprudence > Par mots-clés du thésaurus > recevabilité de la requête

Judgment No. 4221

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

post classification; complaint dismissed

Consideration 1

Extract:

The complainant requests an oral hearing pursuant to Article 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The request is rejected as the Tribunal considers that the issues raised in this case can fairly be resolved on the detailed submissions, materials and documents which the parties have provided.

Keywords

oral proceedings

Consideration 7

Extract:

According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may not, in her or his rejoinder, enter new claims not contained in the original complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4092, consideration 10).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4092

Keywords

new claim; rejoinder

Consideration 8

Extract:

[C]onsistent principle has it that a complainant must comply with the time limits and the procedures, as set out in the organisation’s internal rules and regulations (see, for example, Judgment 3947, consideration 4, and the case law cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3947

Keywords

receivability of the complaint; internal remedies exhausted; time limit

Consideration 10

Extract:

The Tribunal sees no circumstances on which to hold that, in breach of its duty of care to the complainant, the Administration attempted (as the Tribunal severely sanctions consistent with Judgment 2282, consideration 11) to keep her from exercising her right to appeal[.]

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2282

Keywords

organisation's duties; misuse of authority; duty of care

Consideration 11

Extract:

The basic guiding principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning classification of posts were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9:
“7. In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in 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).’
8. As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
‘It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.’
9. The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
[...].”

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589, 3764, 4000

Keywords

post classification; discretion

Consideration 15

Extract:

[I]t is not within the Tribunal’s remit to conduct an analysis of the posts with which the complainant seeks to compare her post for the subject purpose (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4000

Keywords

competence of tribunal; post classification

Consideration 15

Extract:

[T]he complainant’s contention that the decision to classify her post at grade P-3 is tainted with abuse of authority is also unfounded. In any event, she provides no evidence to support that contention (for such a requirement see, for example, Judgment 3939, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3939

Keywords

burden of proof; misuse of authority

Consideration 17

Extract:

The complainant seeks damages on the ground that her right to a fair trial and to professional legal help during the desk audit or before the Appeals Board was breached. This claim is unfounded. There is no regulatory provision or statement in the case law that makes it mandatory that a staff member be represented by counsel either during the conduct of a desk audit or in the internal appeal proceedings (see, for example, Judgments 995, consideration 5, 1763, consideration 10, 1817, consideration 8, and 2660, consideration 8).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 995, 1763, 1817, 2660

Keywords

internal appeals body; due process; legal assistance; desk audit



 
Dernière mise à jour: 20.05.2020 ^ haut