Judgment No. 4307
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for the reclassification of his post as well as his request for compensation for performing duties at a higher grade than his.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; complaint dismissed
Consideration 8
Extract:
Consistent precedent has it that the process of classifying posts in international organizations constitutes an act of technical evaluation, and, accordingly, it is not for the Tribunal to weigh, compare and/or determine the relative merits of ratings which are thereby accorded. The case law further states that the classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the post description and is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9). The case law has also consistently stated, for example, in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, 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. 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. The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organization (or the person acting on her or his behalf).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4000
Keywords
post classification
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that the executive head of an organisation who rejects the conclusions and recommendations of an authority charged with making a prior recommendation is obliged to provide adequate reasons for rejecting them. This is to ensure that there will be no room for arbitrary, unprincipled, or even irrational, decision-making. However, 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 his or her decision than those given by the appeal body itself (see Judgments 3994, consideration 12, and 2092, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2092, 3994
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; motivation of final decision
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is well established in the case law that a “staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him”. Additionally, “[u]nder normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2700, consideration 6; see also Judgment 3264, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2700, 3264
Keywords
disclosure of evidence
|
