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 2851
107th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The Tribunal points out that post classification cannot be confused with performance review. It is uncontested that the complainant's performance was considered highly by her supervisors but that does not have any relevance to the assessment of her post for the purposes of grade classification."
Keywords:
grade; performance report; post classification; request by a party;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal finds that the complainant has shown no proof of bias against her on the part of the Organization. In fact it appears that the Organization was diligent in the exercise of its duty of care towards the complainant, as seen in the repeated attempts at mediation and the care in offering her multiple opportunities to contribute to the post classification process through updated job descriptions and other relevant submissions."
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; organisation's duties; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2844
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Although the complainant has at all stages requested the reclassification of her post to grade P.2, the Tribunal can do no more than order a desk audit on the terms decided by the Director-General. In this respect, consistent precedent has it that classification exercises are to be conducted by the appropriate body and not by the Tribunal (see Judgments 2151, under 9, and 2807, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2807
Keywords:
advisory body; competence of tribunal; limits; post classification;
Judgment 2807
106th Session, 2009
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not undertake an exercise to classify or reclassify posts in an organisation's structure [...], since decisions in this sphere lie within the discretion of the organisation and may be set aside only on limited grounds. Such is the case, 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 [...]. In the absence of such grounds, the Tribunal will not remit the case to the organisation, nor will it substitute its own post evaluation for that of the competent bodies [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2151, 2514, 2581
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2770
106th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"Considerations of fairness and justice apply to merit promotions as well as to promotions resulting from reclassification."
Keywords:
equity; grade; personal promotion; post classification; promotion;
Judgment 2706
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant, who was sexually harassed by her supervisor, wants the Tribunal to order that she be promoted. "[T]he Organization is of course right in saying that the compensation for her injuries should not take the form of being granted a higher grade. 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."
Keywords:
allowance; compensation; definition; difference; harassment; injury; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; promotion; qualifications; request by a party; respect for dignity; sex discrimination; supervisor;
Judgment 2581
102nd Session, 2007
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
"[C]onsistent precedent has it that 'decisions in respect of post classification are at the Administration's discretion and can only be set aside on limited grounds. It does not behove the Tribunal to substitute its own post assessment for that of the Organization' (see for example Judgment 1874)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1874
Keywords:
case law; decision; discretion; grounds; iloat; judicial review; limits; organisation; post classification;
Judgment 2514
100th Session, 2006
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently held that it is for the competent body and, in the last resort, the executive head of the relevant organisation to grade staff members following an exercise involving the making of value judgements as to the nature and extent of the duties and responsibilities of the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal will only substitute its own assessment or direct a new assessment if it is shown, for example, that the competent body acted on some wrong principle or overlooked some material fact or reached a clearly wrong conclusion (see Judgments 594, 1067, 1152, 1281 and 1495)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 594, 1067, 1152, 1281, 1495
Keywords:
case law; discretion; disregard of essential fact; executive head; grade; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2314
96th Session, 2004
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"An employer is not absolved from the requirement to ensure equal treatment and equal pay for work of equal value merely because an employee has the right to seek reclassification of his or her post."
Keywords:
equal pay for equal work; equal treatment; official; organisation; organisation's duties; post classification; request by a party; right; safeguard; salary;
Judgment 2151
93rd Session, 2002
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"In the Tribunal's view, the fact that [...] two staff members [...] filed no internal appeal does not prevent them from applying to intervene (see Judgment 518). The only issue to be resolved is whether the organisation's decisions on post classification apply to them. [...] This judgment should be extended to them only insofar as they have an interest, on account of their de jure and de facto position regarding post classification, in benefiting from the Tribunal's decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 518
Keywords:
cause of action; enforcement; internal remedies exhausted; intervention; judgment of the tribunal; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not undertake a job classification exercise, which lies solely within the authority of the defendant. However, the succession of errors made in this case, as acknowledged both by the Classification Review Committee and the [Organisation] itself, leaves room for serious doubts concerning the objectivity of the rationale for the classifications that are being challenged. [...] The Tribunal finds that the complainants must not suffer any injury from the Organisation's impossibility to reconstitute the elements on which the classification was made. [The Tribunal] has to assess the effects of the errors committed and of the [Organisation]'s inability to indicate precisely the methods followed by the consultant in his recommendation to maintain the complainants' posts at [the same] grade."
Keywords:
complainant; consequence; flaw; grade; injury; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; negligence; post; post classification; post held by the complainant;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2097
92nd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
Because of serious financial difficulties the organisation had to employ the complainants simultaneously under a fixed- term appointment at half-time and a short-term part-time appointment. After being restored to their full-time fixed-term status they complained about the rates of remuneration received by them under their short-term contracts. "The principle which guarantees equal remuneration for work of equal value [...] is designed to prevent discrimination by employers between employees and to ensure that persons performing different work of the same or similar value shall receive equal remuneration. The organization is right to submit that its most common application is to the classification or grading of jobs [...]. That principle was never intended to apply so as to give rise to a claim by an individual to be paid at the same rate for all work which he or she performs: differential rates for work performed under different conditions, such as overtime to take a common example, are not discriminatory. In the present case there is nothing improper in the who's paying lower rates to persons such as the complainants doing temporary work on a short-term basis."
Keywords:
amount; budgetary reasons; condition; contract; difference; enforcement; equal treatment; fixed-term; general principle; official; organisation; overtime; part-time employment; post classification; safeguard; salary; scale; short-term; status of complainant; terms of appointment;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"A quantitative difference in duties rather than a difference in their nature or intrinsic importance is not a decisive criterion on which to base a difference in grade between two officials who perform exactly the same duties."
Keywords:
criteria; difference; grade; official; post; post classification; post description;
Judgment 2023
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The principle of equal pay for work of equal value applies to the grading of posts [...] Step increases within a grade are not contrary to the principle of equal pay."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PART II, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPHS 20 AND 30.1 WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
applicable law; equal treatment; general principle; increment; post classification; salary;
Judgment 1976
89th Session, 2000
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant, who holds a post in the general service category, requested a job description "in line with current tasks being carried out [...] at the professional level". The Tribunal considers that "as regards her request that her current tasks be classified at the professional level, this is not within the competence of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no power to direct that a particular job be classified at the professional level."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; general service category; post classification; post description; professional category;
Judgment 1874
87th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
That the complainant carried out her duties competently, which is uncontested, is not a ground for reviewing the classification of her post, and the Tribunal recalls in this connection, as it did in Judgment 1647 [...], that: "grading hinges neither on quality of performance nor on seniority. The sole criteria are the duties and responsibilities of the post. And the grade cannot change unless there is a 'significant change in [their] level'".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1647
Keywords:
post classification;
Judgment 1808
86th Session, 1999
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"Grading turns on the duties of the post, not on the quality of performance. Nor do the master standard for classification of professional posts and the standards and procedures of the professional grading appeals committee lay any duty on the [organization] to make available an official's performance reports for the purpose of a grading exercise".
Keywords:
criteria; grade; icsc decision; organisation's duties; performance report; post; post classification; post held by the complainant; professional category; reclassification; work appraisal;
Judgment 1647
83rd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
It follows from WHO Manual paragraph II.1.30 that "grading hinges neither on quality of performance nor on seniority. The sole criteria are the duties and responsibilities of the post. And the grade cannot change unless there is a 'significant change in [their] level'."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPHE II.1.30 OF WHO MANUAL
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; criteria; post; post classification; post description; seniority; staff regulations and rules; work appraisal;
Judgment 1594
82nd Session, 1997
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
The description and grading of the complainant's post dragged on for three-and-a-half years, and that was too long. As the Appeal Board held, "the administration has a duty to process promptly any claim to upgrading or to payment of special post allowance so that the official will not be left to suffer or to wonder what is going on.
Keywords:
administrative delay; duty of care; good faith; organisation's duties; post classification; post description; request by a party; special post allowance; staff member's interest;
Judgment 1560
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Organization to say how often it has stopped a competition in order to change the duties of the vacant post and regrade it. There is no need for evidence on that score since the issue is not decisive: if the procedure is lawful it is immaterial how often UNESCO may have followed it before".
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; disclosure of evidence; evidence; post; post classification; submissions;
Judgment 1495
80th Session, 1996
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"A decision determining a career path in accordance with CERN rules is analogous to a decision about grading. A long line of precedent leaves such a decision to the Director-General's discretion."
Keywords:
case law; discretion; executive head; judicial review; post classification; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next >
|
