Judgment No. 4024
1. The IAEA shall pay the complainant 11,000 euros in moral damages.
2. All other claims are dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
complaint allowed; post classification
[T]he Tribunal has no competence to order an organization to reclassify a post (see, for example, Judgment 3834, consideration 6).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3834
order; post classification
In Judgment 3589, where the reclassification of a post was challenged, the Tribunal stated the following at 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): 3589
post classification; reclassification
[I]t is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7). [...]
In the Tribunal’s view, there was sufficient evidence upon which the Joint Appeals Board could have concluded, as it did, that the reclassification process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of AM.II/3. The Tribunal also notes that reasons were given for the decision not to reclassify the complainant’s post. In short, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the evaluation or of the reclassification exercise involved a mistaken conclusion (see Judgment 3589, consideration 4). In the foregoing premises, the complainant was not financially disadvantaged by the decision not to reclassify her post.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439, 3589
internal appeals body; evidence
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...] The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
The Joint Appeals Board observed that the information and explanation which the complainant received about the reclassification were insufficient, particularly after such a delay in the process, and that additional information should have been given to her at the end of the process. The complainant states that she requested a copy of the “reclassification review document” from MTHR but never received it. The IAEA states that there is no such document. It is however noted that the IAEA provided documents to the Joint Appeals Board, which it did not provide to the complainant. It is also noted that the IAEA did not provide a copy of the full job evaluation report, which included the desk audit report and the proposed job description for Policy Associate, DGOP, until it submitted its reply in these proceedings. It confirmed that Ms S.G. prepared the document, which is dated July 2013. The IAEA should have provided these documents to the complainant much earlier, and, in any event, in time to enable her to properly prepare and present her internal appeal. The IAEA thereby breached the principle of procedural fairness.
disclosure of evidence