Judgment No. 4083
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
post classification; complaint dismissed
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2614, consideration 11, “[i]t is not in dispute that a classification review, a highly technical exercise, must be conducted by an individual having the requisite training and experience”. It is also clear in the case law that the required training and experience is in the area of classification and evaluation. This is reflected in Judgment 3479, consideration 5, where the Tribunal stated that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgement to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task [...]”.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2614, 3479
Keywords
post classification
Consideration 12
Extract:
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).” (See Judgment 3589, consideration 4.)
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1067, 1647, 3294, 3589
Keywords
post classification; judicial review
|
