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

Reclassification (851,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Reclassification
Total judgments found: 19

  • Judgment 4275


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

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    claim moot; complaint dismissed; reclassification;



  • Judgment 4274


    130th Session, 2020
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges his classification at grade 5 in the new career structure established following the 2015 five-yearly review.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; reclassification;



  • 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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; reclassification;



  • 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.

    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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; reclassification;

    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.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; reclassification;



  • Judgment 4163


    128th Session, 2019
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to process his request for the reclassification of his post on the ground that he had separated from the Organization.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; former official; reclassification;

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant relies on Judgment 2658. For relevant purposes, that judgment affirms the principle that a request for the reclassification of a position of a staff member while the person was a member of staff can be pursued after and notwithstanding that the person had separated from the organization. In its pleas, UNIDO seeks to distinguish that judgment having regard to the differing facts in this case. However, the points of distinction have no bearing on the applicability of the principle just discussed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2658

    Keywords:

    former official; receivability of the complaint; reclassification;



  • 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 4024


    126th Session, 2018
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    In Judgment 3589, where the reclassification of a post was challenged, the Tribunal stated the following at 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): 3589

    Keywords:

    post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 4000


    126th Session, 2018
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post at grade P-4.

    Considerations 7-9

    Extract:

    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).”
    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.”
    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

    Keywords:

    equal treatment; post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 3912


    125th Session, 2018
    International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the classification of her post.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    It is convenient [...] to set out the guiding principles in a case in which the classification of a post is challenged. They were stated as follows, for example, 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:

    discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 3726


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss her claim for compensation on account of labour exploitation and compulsory labour.

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    [The Tribunal] can grant damages if it is not disputed that the complainant performed work beyond her current grade (see, for example, Judgment 3284, considerations 14 and 17). The Tribunal therefore determines that the complainant is entitled to material damages for the tasks that she performed above her G.5 grade, and that she is entitled to moral damages for the prejudice that she suffered by IOM’s breach.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284

    Keywords:

    grade; material damages; moral injury; order; post classification; reclassification; retroactivity;



  • Judgment 3490


    120th Session, 2015
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to grant her request for retroactive reclassification of her former post.

    Consideration 19

    Extract:

    "[I]n Judgment 3273, under 6, the Tribunal had occasion to reiterate that “an evaluation or classification exercise is based on the technical judgment 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. Such a decision cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgment 2581).”"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2581, 3273

    Keywords:

    judicial review; post classification; reclassification;

    Consideration 30

    Extract:

    "The complainant asks the Tribunal to order the retroactive reclassification of the post […] and to order the IAEA to pay material damages equivalent to the salary differential […] taking into account step increases […]. First, the reclassification of a post is clearly beyond the competence of the Tribunal as the authority to do so rests exclusively with the Director General and as delegated. Second, granting the request for the material damages would amount to the Tribunal substituting its own assessment for that of the competent authority contrary to well settled case law (for example, see Judgments 2284, under 9, and 3284, under 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2284, 3284

    Keywords:

    competence of tribunal; order; post classification; reclassification;



  • Judgment 3370


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who performed duties at a higher level than his grade, impugns the decision not to grant him a promotion and acting allowance, and partially succeeds on the basis that the Organisation breached its duty of care.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "It is well settled in judgments of the Tribunal that it will not order the promotion or reclassification of a staff member, as such decisions are discretionary and involve specialist evaluation (see, for example, Judgment 2706, consideration 14)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706

    Keywords:

    discretion; promotion; reclassification;



  • Judgment 3352


    118th Session, 2014
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainants challenge the result of the evaluation of their job grade.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "The classification of a post constitutes an act of technical evaluation and “[a]s the Tribunal has consistently held, the grading of posts is a matter within the discretion of the executive head of an international organisation. It depends on an evaluation of the nature of the work performed and the level of the responsibilities pertaining to the post which can be conducted only by persons with relevant training and experience. It follows that grading decisions are subject to only limited review and that the Tribunal cannot, in particular, substitute its own assessment of a post for that of the Organisation. A decision of this kind cannot be set aside unless it was taken without authority, shows some formal or procedural flaw or a mistake of fact or of
    law, overlooks some material fact, draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the facts or is an abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1281, under 2, or 2514, under 13).” (See Judgment 2927, under 5.) In the present case, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the results of the post evaluation involve a manifestly mistaken conclusion, and the complainants have not established that the methodology adopted for all B/C category posts was technically flawed. In effect, the complainants are asking the Tribunal to go beyond its remit and to substitute its choice of methodology for the technical evaluation. This, the Tribunal will not do for the reasons detailed above."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1281, 2514, 2927

    Keywords:

    post classification; reclassification;



  • 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.

    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 3084


    112th Session, 2012
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; promotion; reclassification; staff representative;



  • Judgment 3082


    112th Session, 2012
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reclassification;



  • 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;


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top