Judgment No. 4314
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.
post classification; complaint dismissed
The Tribunal has consistently stated, usually in the context of internal appeal proceedings, that it is necessary for an ultimate decision-making authority to motivate or explain the reasons for not accepting a prior review and motivated recommendation. Having regard to its rationale, which the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 3208, consideration 11, this requirement is equally applicable in this case, which concerns the final decision taken on a recommendation as to the classification of a post. According to that reasoning, if the ultimate decision-maker (the Director in this case) rejected the conclusions and recommendations of the body which was charged with making the prior review and motivated recommendation (the GAC in this case), the Director was obliged to provide adequate reasons for so doing. The Tribunal has stated that the value of this safeguard enjoyed by international civil servants would be significantly eroded if the ultimate decision-making authority could reject conclusions and recommendations of the body that made the prior review and motivated recommendation without explaining why. It additionally stated that, if adequate reasons were not required, then room would emerge for arbitrary, unprincipled or even irrational decision-making.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3208
motivation of final decision
Consistent precedent has it that the process of classifying posts in international organisations 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 Tribunal has 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 organisation, or the person acting on her or his behalf (see also Judgments 4024, consideration 3, 4164, consideration 4, 4186, consideration 6, and 4193, consideration 2).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4024, 4164, 4186, 4193
post classification; discretion
The Tribunal emphasises that the relevant question was not whether the complainant had a working knowledge of two or more languages but whether the job description for the post required two or more languages.
post classification; post description