Judgment No. 1113
Decision
THE COMPLAINT AND THE ORGANIZATION'S COUNTER-CLAIM ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 2
Extract:
After carrying out a staff review, the organization confirmed the grading of the complainant's post at grade G.5. "The reasons for CERN's decision in this case are evident from the file, the implication in the words used being that it accepted the 'views and recommendations' on the file that there should be no upgrading."
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; grounds; recommendation; post classification; judicial review; advisory opinion
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant failed to have her post upgraded. Her plea of disregard of relevant facts fails. "The essential point is that, though the complainant's duties might warrant an upgrading if she showed a higher degree of responsibility, initiative and judgment, it was proper to take the view that she did not, and therefore her post does not warrant the higher grade." The Tribunal holds that, despite the difference of opinion, there was evidence on which such a judgment could be based and will not substitute its own view on the matter for the organization's.
Keywords
post classification; grade; different appraisals; judicial review; disregard of essential fact; criteria
Consideration 5
Extract:
Even though [the] complaint is dismissed, "the Tribunal will not entertain CERN's counter-claim to an award of costs against [the complainant]."
Keywords
tribunal; costs; counterclaim; refusal
| 
