Judgment No. 252
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 1
Extract:
"It is for the competent body and in the last resort the Director-General to grade each staff member. Certain criteria have to be followed. [...] Further, the competent body will not base its grading exclusively on the text of the [Regulations] and post description, but will also consider the qualifications and degree of responsibility required by each."
Keywords
post classification; grade; post description; discretion; criteria
Consideration 1
Extract:
"In all cases grading a post requires close familiarity with the conditions in which the incumbent works. It is therefore a discretionary decision which in general the Tribunal may not interfere with unless it was taken without authority, or violates [...]."
Keywords
post classification; judicial review; discretion; criteria
Summary
Extract:
The complainant contends that his functions should be assigned to the next grade up. The Tribunal, having examined the matter in detail comparing the post descriptions and statutory definitions of the two grades in question ["messenger" and "doorkeeper"], holds that the complainant's argument is unfounded and that the Director-General did not exceed or abuse his discretionary authority. The complaint is dismissed.
Keywords
post classification; grade; post description; judicial review; discretion
| 
