ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Post classification (259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Post classification
Total judgments found: 123

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >

  • Judgment 4437


    132nd Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post following her transfer.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    S’il y a lieu de regretter que la requérante n’ait pas été destinataire de la version finale de ce rapport [d'audit de son poste], établie après l’examen de ses observations, ce vice a en l’espèce été réparé par la communication à l’intéressée de ce document, qui a été produit par la défenderesse en annexe à son mémoire en réponse, dans le cadre de la procédure devant le Tribunal (voir, par exemple, le jugement 3117, au considérant 11, et la jurisprudence citée). Le moyen sera donc rejeté.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3117

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; post classification;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    Le Tribunal rappelle que l’évaluation et le classement d’un poste reposent sur des données techniques. Ainsi, selon sa jurisprudence, il ne réexaminera le classement d’un poste que pour des motifs limités et les décisions de classement ne peuvent en principe être annulées que si elles ont été prises par une autorité incompétente, si elles sont entachées d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, si elles reposent sur une erreur de fait ou de droit, si des faits essentiels n’ont pas été pris en compte, si elles sont entachées de détournement de pouvoir ou si des conclusions manifestement erronées ont été tirées du dossier. En effet, le classement des postes appelle nécessairement un jugement de valeur quant à la nature et à l’étendue des tâches et responsabilités qui y sont afférentes, et il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de procéder à une telle évaluation. Le classement des postes est laissé à l’appréciation du chef exécutif de l’organisation (ou de la personne qui agit en son nom) (voir, par exemple, le jugement 4221, au considérant 11, et la jurisprudence citée).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4221

    Keywords:

    judicial review; post classification;



  • Judgment 4402


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.

    The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.

    The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Considerations 7-9

    Extract:

    The import of the complainant’s argument is that any member of staff of an international organisation has an ongoing right, enforceable through internal appeal and ultimately in the Tribunal, to request or even demand at any time a review of salary and classification which must be considered by the organisation and have a decision made on the request.
    It is true that the Tribunal has acknowledged in, for example, Judgment 2706, consideration 12, that: “it is the duty of international organisations to abide by the principle of equality and in particular to comply with its requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value. [...] if their rules and procedures do not ensure adherence to those requirements in respect of their staff, it is their duty to take remedial steps, whether by way of some general rule or by some specific procedure for the particular case.” Additionally, it has been acknowledged in, for example, Judgment 2931, that the principle of equality feeds into the determination of an appropriate classification.
    But the complainant has failed to establish the legal foundation for his contention that the Director HRD was under a legal duty to consider his request […], let alone that he was then duty bound to reclassify the complainant’s position as requested.

    Keywords:

    equal pay for equal work; post classification;



  • Judgment 4384


    131st Session, 2021
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    According to Judgment 4186, consideration 6, “[i]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law 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, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). Indeed, 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 an international organisation (or of the person acting on his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4186

    Keywords:

    post classification;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; post classification;



  • Judgment 4372


    131st Session, 2021
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to classify him in the type of post “Assistant”.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;



  • Judgment 4336


    131st Session, 2021
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post from grade level G-4 to grade level G-5.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; desk audit; post classification;



  • Judgment 4314


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for the reclassification of her post.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that the process of classifying posts in international organisations constitutes an act of technical evaluation, and, accordingly, it is not for the Tribunal to weigh, compare and/or determine the relative merits of ratings which are thereby accorded. The Tribunal has consistently stated, for example in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, 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. 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. 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 also Judgments 4024, consideration 3, 4164, consideration 4, 4186, consideration 6, and 4193, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4024, 4164, 4186, 4193

    Keywords:

    discretion; post classification;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The Tribunal emphasises that the relevant question was not whether the complainant had a working knowledge of two or more languages but whether the job description for the post required two or more languages.

    Keywords:

    post classification; post description;



  • Judgment 4312


    130th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The classification of posts necessarily 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 that evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 3294, consideration 8). That classification 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, Judgments 3082, consideration 20, 4040, consideration 3, and 4186, consideration 6). That is why it is well established in the Tribunal’s case law 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, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 4040, 4186

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; post classification;



  • Judgment 4307


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for the reclassification of his post as well as his request for compensation for performing duties at a higher grade than his.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Consistent precedent has it that the process of classifying posts in international organizations constitutes an act of technical evaluation, and, accordingly, it is not for the Tribunal to weigh, compare and/or determine the relative merits of ratings which are thereby accorded. The case law further states that the classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the post description and is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9). The case law has also consistently stated, for example, in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, 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. 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. The grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of the organization (or the person acting on her or his behalf).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3589, 4000

    Keywords:

    post classification;



  • Judgment 4306


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the effective date which has been set for the retroactive reclassification of her post and the undue delay in the reclassification procedure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;



  • Judgment 4273


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge their classification in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;



  • Judgment 4240


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that her reassignment to the post of Senior Advisor violated WHO’s post classification standards. She presents arguments and a narrative that are highly technical to support this assertion and essentially invites the Tribunal to undertake a technical assessment of that evidence. The Tribunal has consistently stated that such an exercise falls within the purview of persons whose expertise by training and experience fits them to undertake it (see, for example, Judgments 4024, consideration 3, and 4083, consideration 8). It is however within the Tribunal’s purview to determine, as stated in Judgment 3488, consideration 3, whether in keeping with its duty of care to the complainant, in reassigning her WHO/UNAIDS showed due regard, in both form and substance, for her dignity, particularly by providing her with work of the same level as that which she performed in her previous post and matching her qualifications. That is, whether WHO/UNAIDS ensured that the responsibilities that attached to her new post were comparable, on an objective basis, to the level of the functions that she performed in her previous post (see, for example, Judgment 1343, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 3488, 4024, 4083

    Keywords:

    duty of care; post classification; reassignment; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 4238


    129th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The applicable regulatory provisions with regard to the complainant’s first and second grounds will be referred to as necessary in this judgment. It suffices at this juncture to recall the basic guiding principles from the case law. The following was stated in Judgment 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9:
    “7. In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
    ‘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).’
    8. As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
    ‘It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.’
    9. The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
    [...]”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589, 3764, 4000

    Keywords:

    post classification;



  • Judgment 4221


    129th Session, 2020
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; post classification;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The basic guiding principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning classification of posts were stated as follows, for example, in Judgment 4000, considerations 7, 8 and 9:
    “7. In Judgment 3589, in which the reclassification of a post was also challenged, the Tribunal stated the following, in consideration 4:
    ‘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).’
    8. As to the main factors that are to be taken into account in a reclassification process, the Tribunal has relevantly stated as follows, in Judgment 3764, consideration 6:
    ‘It is for the competent body and, ultimately, the Director-General to determine each staff member’s grade. Several criteria are used in this exercise. Thus, when a staff member’s duties attach to various grades, only the main ones are taken into account. Moreover, the classification body does not rely solely on the text of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules and the job description but also considers the abilities and degree of responsibility required by each. In all cases grading a post requires detailed knowledge of the conditions in which the incumbent works.’
    9. The classification of a post involves an evaluation of the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post based upon the job description. It is not concerned with the merits of the performance of the incumbent (see, for example, Judgment 591, under 2).
    [...].”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 591, 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589, 3764, 4000

    Keywords:

    discretion; post classification;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    [I]t is not within the Tribunal’s remit to conduct an analysis of the posts with which the complainant seeks to compare her post for the subject purpose (see, for example, Judgment 4000, consideration 9).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4000

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; post classification;



  • Judgment 4193


    128th Session, 2019
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her former post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; post classification;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    Inasmuch as it is within the authority of the President to determine the grade of a post, the Tribunal does not have the competence to make an order which the complainant seeks that it upgrade her post [...] retroactively [...].

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; order; post classification;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [O]n consistent precedent the basic applicable principles where the reclassification of a post is challenged have been stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4, for example:
    “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).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294

    Keywords:

    post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 4186


    128th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for a job grading review.

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    It is well established in the Tribunal’s case law 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, was made in breach of the rules of form or procedure, was based on an error of fact or law, overlooked an essential fact, was tainted with abuse of authority or if a truly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts (see, for example, Judgments 1647, consideration 7, and 1067, consideration 2). Indeed, 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 an international organisation (or of the person acting on his behalf) (see, for example, Judgment 3082, consideration 20).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 4164


    128th Session, 2019
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision rejecting his request to reclassify his post.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he basic guiding principles where the classification of a post is at issue were stated as follows in Judgment 3589, consideration 4:
    “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).”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3082, 3294, 3589

    Keywords:

    post classification;



  • Judgment 4144


    128th Session, 2019
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to revise the “partly satisfactory” overall rating in his performance evaluation report.

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    Finally, the Tribunal deals with the plea under (h) according to which the complainant’s 2016 PER was flawed as he did not have a specific job description on the basis of which his performance could be assessed, as provided for in Staff Rule 105.1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Organization should have a specific job description for each post and that the performance should be evaluated on the basis of the duties and responsibilities as set forth in the job description, but it also notes that a general job classification standard, approved by the Director-General, exists. Indeed, Staff Rule 107.3 provides that “[t]he duties and responsibilities of each post in grades 1-12 inclusive shall be evaluated on the basis of job classification standards approved by the Director-General”. The complainant’s 2016 performance was evaluated based on the job classification standard for his post and grade and on the work objectives indicated by the supervisor. Moreover his underperformance, relating mostly to his interactions with his colleagues and supervisors, was not linked to the performance of specific duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, the JAB’s finding that the absence of a comprehensive job description and/or specific benchmarks in this case does not constitute a procedural flaw affecting the lawfulness of the 2016 PER is correct.

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;



  • Judgment 4102


    127th Session, 2019
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the ILO’s failure to take a final decision on her job grading appeal and the failure to grant her a contract without limit of time.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; duration of appointment; grade; post classification; titularization;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal cannot order the Organization to reclassify the complainant’s post since this is a discretionary decision to be made by the Organization.

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; discretion; post classification;



  • Judgment 4086


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.

    Considerations 10-11

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law has it that when a staff member of an international organization is transferred to a new post in non-disciplinary circumstances, that transfer is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting the staff member’s status. The organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the staff member, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level as that which she or he performed in her or his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see, for example, Judgment 2229, under 3(a)). This requirement is consistent with Staff Regulation 4.3(c) [...].
    The responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar (see, for example, Judgment 1343, under 9). It is not for the Tribunal to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto, as that exercise falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organization, on the recommendation of the relevant manager, and it is equally within the power of the management to determine the qualifications required for a particular post (see, for example, Judgment 2373, under 7). However, every employee has the right to a proper administrative position, which means that she or he should both hold a post and perform the duties pertaining thereto and should be given real work (see, for example, Judgment 2360, under 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 2229, 2360, 2373

    Keywords:

    assignment; discretion; general principle; grade; judicial review; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; reclassification; respect for dignity; transfer;



  • Judgment 4083


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    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)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2614, 3479

    Keywords:

    post classification;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; 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)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1647, 3294, 3589

    Keywords:

    judicial review; post classification;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >


 
Last updated: 22.09.2021 ^ top