Post classification (259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Post classification
Total judgments found: 137
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
Judgment 3284
116th Session, 2014
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenged the decision not to conduct a review of the grade assigned to his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Consideration 12
Extract:
Much of the detailed factual material and analysis advanced by the parties was designed to show (on the complainant’s part) or rebut (on the OPCW’s part) that since early 2007 the complainant had not simply been performing the tasks of the G-5 level position but had been performing the tasks of a P-2 position. This factual dispute and its resolution in the complainant’s favour was in support of his claim for material damages being the difference in salary, emoluments, pension contributions, and other benefits he would have earned or received at the P-2 level from 1 January 2007. However, the Tribunal’s role is not to undertake the evaluative task of determining what is or should have been the appropriate classification for any particular position (such as that held by the complainant in January 2007 and thereafter) nor the allied evaluative task of determining what is or should have been the appropriate remuneration. In a case such as the present a complainant’s right to either material or moral damages or both must be founded on a demonstrated failure of the employing organisation and its administration to comply with the applicable staff rules and regulations or the principles that have developed in this Tribunal governing the relationship between staff and an organisation.
Keywords:
judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 3278
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision confirming the classification of his employment in a new grade bracket.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; plenary judgment; post classification; staff representative;
Judgment 3277
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the classification of her employment in a new grade bracket following an administrative reform.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; plenary judgment; post classification;
Judgment 3276
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants unsuccessfully impugn the reclassification of their posts following the reform of the Staff Regulations, which allegedly deprives them of any career advancement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; reorganisation;
Judgment 3275
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the reclassification of their posts as inadequate, not equivalent to their former positions and depriving them of any career advancement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; en banc review; plenary judgment; post classification; reorganisation;
Judgment 3274
116th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint about a post reclassification resulting from an administrative reform was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; reorganisation;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
It must be recalled that the Tribunal is not competent to review the advisability or merits of the changes which Eurocontrol has introduced in its staff management, for they form part of general employment policy which an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests (see Judgment 3225, under 6).
Contrary to the complainant’s submissions, the new job classification system does not, however, deprive him of his prospects of career advancement within Eurocontrol. He can still be promoted in either of the circumstances outlined above. Moreover, the complainant has produced no evidence that he would have been entitled to promotion when the change in his job title and grade was adopted. It was, however, only on this condition that the Director General would have had a duty to review the grade assigned to him subject to the particular conditions laid down by Article 6 of Rule of Application No. 35, after obtaining the opinion of the Committee in charge of job management monitoring.
The complainant considers that he should have been assigned the generic post of Service Manager or Senior Manager in a higher career bracket which, in his opinion, ought at all events to have led to his promotion to grade A*12. This is what he requested, without success, in his internal complaint of 27 September 2010. The classification of posts necessarily involves the exercise of a value judgement as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the posts. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment unless certain grounds are established. Save when the impugned decision was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw, the Tribunal will interfere with the decision only if it is based on a mistake of fact or of law, overlooks some material fact, is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts (see Judgments 1281, under 2, and 3016, under 7). It is therefore understandable that the complainant relies only on errors of judgement and the overlooking of material facts when a comparison was made of his respective powers and tasks in his old and new posts.
The complainant’s arguments are not sufficient to convince the Tribunal that the disputed classification decision is tainted with the flaws which he alleges. He has not established that when Eurocontrol transposed grades it should have promoted him to a higher grade on account of his work and experience.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281, 3016, 3225
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification; reorganisation;
Judgment 3273
116th Session, 2014
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place his post in a certain grade group following an allegedly flawed assessment process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently confirmed 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. It is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment for that of the organisation."
Keywords:
decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post classification;
Judgment 3267
116th Session, 2014
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugned the decision not to waive the time limit for lodging an internal appeal, claiming that his heavy workload constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of a waiver.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; post classification; time limit;
Judgment 3232
115th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his classification in the new grade structure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3231
115th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his classification in the new grade structure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3230
115th Session, 2013
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contends that, by classifying his post at grade B*10, although he already had 15 years’ experience, the Agency committed an obvious error of judgement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3220
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, aiming at the upgrade of the complainant's post, was considered as premature by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
absence of final decision; complaint dismissed; post classification;
Judgment 3193
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the reclassification of a vacant post and the appointment to that post of another staff member.
Consideration 12
Extract:
"In a case where a complainant establishes that the disputed decision involved an abuse of power, the appropriate relief is often to set aside the decision. Indeed, such a decision should not stand in the face of the conclusion that it involved an abuse of power. [However], in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case, it would be inadvisable to set aside the disputed decisions notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that they involved an abuse of power. The appropriate remedy is therefore to award the complainant moral damages for the indirect consequences of the decisions the Tribunal has concluded were legally flawed."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 496
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; moral injury; organisation's interest; post classification; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; post classification;
Judgment 3133
113th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; retirement age;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the complainant has not submitted any evidence that the post classification decision was vitiated by any flaws subject to the Tribunal's review (i.e. that it was taken without authority or in breach of a formal or procedural rule, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooked some essential fact, or constituted abuse of authority, or drew mistaken conclusions from the factual evidence, etc.), there is no reason for the Tribunal to consider the decision unlawful.
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment 3043
111th Session, 2011
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"[A]d personam promotion constitutes advancement on merit to reward an employee for services of a quality higher than that ordinarily expected of the holder of the post. In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is an optional and exceptional discretionary measure which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1500, under 4, and 1973, under 5). This kind of promotion should certainly not be granted as redress for an alleged injury, as the complainant requests. The advancement of an official naturally obeys its own logic related to the classification of the job done and the professional merit of the person in question, which has nothing to do with the logic behind compensation for injuries which may have been caused to this person by the international organisation employing him or her (see Judgment 2706, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1500, 1973, 2706
Keywords:
claim; compensation; compensatory measure; definition; discretion; exception; injury; judicial review; limits; no provision; organisation; personal promotion; post; post classification; purpose; refusal; request by a party; satisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3016
111th Session, 2011
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
Rejection of the complainant's request for reclassification of her post following a classification exercise.
"The classification of posts involves the exercise of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the posts. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment unless certain grounds are established. Consistent precedent has it that 'the Tribunal will not interfere with the decision [...] unless it was taken without authority or shows some procedural or formal flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, or overlooks some material fact, or is an abuse of authority, or draws a clearly mistaken conclusion from the facts' (see Judgment 1281, under 2)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281
Keywords:
abuse of power; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; grounds; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; post; post classification; procedural flaw;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he complainant's claim for egregious delay is founded. More than four years passed from the start of the post classification exercise to when the final decision was made, and that is excessive."
Keywords:
claim; complainant; decision; delay; late decision; post classification; reasonable time;
Judgment 2975
110th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"It is well established in the case law that decisions taken in relation to restructuring and the reclassification of posts within an Organization's structure are 'within the discretion of the organisation and may be set aside only on limited grounds [...] for example, if the competent bodies breached procedural rules, or if they acted on some wrong principle, overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion' (see Judgment 2807, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2807
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reorganisation;
Judgment 2970
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
As the Joint Committee for Disputes appositely noted, the question raised in this case, which is that of the nature and level of the
complainant’s duties, is a factual and technical matter which only specialists can decide. Indeed, that is why the Committee suggested that, if necessary, an independent audit of the complainant’s post should be carried out.
[T]he Tribunal considers that, in these circumstances, the case should be referred back to the Organisation, which should commission an independent audit in order to ascertain the complainant’s actual duties and their level [...].
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 2931
109th Session, 2010
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"[I]t was an affront to her dignity and a breach of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value to expect the complainant to work at a post that was graded below the level of the duties actually being performed. For this, she is entitled to moral damages [...]."
Keywords:
compensation; equal treatment; grade; moral injury; post; post classification; post description; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2904
108th Session, 2010
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The first substantive argument raised by the complainant regards the failure by the human resources specialist to consider the revised post description that was submitted to the Human Resources Management Division in 2002. In the Tribunal's view, as the revised post description had not been properly reviewed and accepted by the relevant division in accordance with the applicable rules (specifically Manual paragraph 280.333), the specialist was correct to disregard it while conducting the desk audit, referring instead to the post description on file."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874
Keywords:
grade; post classification; post description; post held by the complainant; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
