Judgment No. 4437
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.
post classification; complaint dismissed
The Tribunal recalls that the evaluation and classification of a post is based on technical data. Thus, under its case law, the grounds on which the classification of a post may be reviewed are limited and ordinarily a classification decision would only be set aside if it was taken without authority, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was 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, for example, Judgment 4221, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4221
post classification; judicial review
While it is regrettable that the complainant was not sent the final version of that report, drawn up after consideration of her comments, that defect was remedied in this case by the disclosure to the complainant of that document, which was produced by UNESCO as an annex to its reply in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3117, consideration 11, and the case law cited therein). The plea will therefore be dismissed.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3117
disclosure of evidence; post classification
Precedent has it that any administrative decision, even when the authority exercises discretionary power, must be based on valid grounds (see, for example, Judgment 4108, consideration 3). Furthermore, under settled case law, the executive head of an international organisation, when taking a decision on an internal appeal that departs from the recommendations made by the appeals body, to the detriment of the employee concerned, must adequately state the reasons for not following those recommendations (see, for example, Judgments 2339, consideration 5, 2699, consideration 24, 3208, consideration 11, 3695, consideration 9, 3830, considerations 6 and 8, or 4062, consideration 3).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2339, 2699, 3208, 3695, 3830, 4062, 4108
duty to substantiate decision; motivation
The Tribunal recalls that there is abuse of authority when an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation’s best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve (see Judgments 1129, consideration 8, 2885, consideration 12, and 3902, consideration 9).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2885, 3902
misuse of authority; abuse of power