Judgment No. 3589
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant impugns PAHO’s rejection of his request for reclassification of his post at the P.4 level.
post classification; discretion; complaint dismissed
"It is well established 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 (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). 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 3082, consideration 20)."
"Much of the complainant’s legal argument addresses how he believes the HRM Classification Team erred in its approach. For example the complainant challenges the basis upon which the HRM Classification Team rejected the suitability of the comparator post (Post .0231) he had advanced in support of the reclassification of his post. But issues such as these are the essence of the discretionary evaluation undertaken in the process of classifying or reclassifying a post. They are not issues with which the Tribunal engages unless there is some manifest error of substance in that process of evaluation."
post classification; manifest error