Judgment No. 3352
Decision
The complaints are dismissed.
Summary
The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The complainants have presented their case extensively and comprehensively in their written submissions, which are sufficient to enable the Tribunal to reach a reasoned and informed decision. Their request for oral proceedings is therefore rejected."
Keywords
oral proceedings
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal considers that the President acted properly in asking the competent Directorates [...] for advice prior to adopting the final decision. There is no requirement that the President inform the complainants of these discussions. The adversarial principle was respected throughout the internal appeal proceedings. This type of post appeal consultation is normal and unexceptionable. There was no violation of the principle of nemo judex in causa propria as the internal appeal proceeding is a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding which results in a non-binding recommendation and the President’s final decision is a final administrative decision which can be appealed before the Tribunal for a final, neutral, judicial decision."
Keywords
due process
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The claim that the Director Regulations and Change Management did not have the authority to act on behalf of the President is unfounded. Even without considering the document [...] which showed that the President personally took the final decision, the fact that the letters [...] stated explicitly that "[t]he President of the Office has carefully considered the unanimous opinion of the Appeals Committee concerning your appeal against the results of the evaluation of your job grade" is sufficient to show that the decision was not taken by the Director, but that he was acting merely as the designated intermediary in informing the complainants of the President’s decision, in accordance with the normal administrative practice (see Judgment 2924, under 5)."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2924
Keywords
delegated authority
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The classification of a post constitutes an act of technical evaluation and “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, the grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation. It depends on an evaluation of the nature of the work performed and the level of the responsibilities pertaining to the post which can be conducted only by persons with relevant training and experience. It follows that grading decisions are subject to only limited review and that the Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment of a post for that of the Organisation. A decision of this kind cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of
law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1281, under 2, or 2514, under 13).” (See Judgment 2927, under 5.) In the present case, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the post evaluation involve a manifestly mistaken conclusion, and the complainants have not established that the methodology adopted for all B/C category posts was technically flawed. In effect, the complainants are asking the Tribunal to go beyond its remit and to substitute its choice of methodology for the technical evaluation. This, the Tribunal will not do for the reasons detailed above."
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1281, 2514, 2927
Keywords
post classification; reclassification
|
