|
|
 |
|
|
Reclassification (851,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reclassification
Total judgments found: 31
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5123
141st Session, 2026
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification; reclassification;
Consideration 14
Extract:
« [S]i la jurisprudence du Tribunal admet certes, sous certaines conditions, qu’une promesse faite par une organisation internationale lie juridiquement celle-ci (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4253, au considérant 6, ou 3148, au considérant 7), les assurances qui avaient ainsi été données aux agents n’ont pas, en tout état de cause, la portée que le requérant leur prête. De fait, il ressort des documents en question que celles-ci concernaient seulement une révision des descriptions d’emploi de ces agents, et non un reclassement de leurs postes. »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3148, 4253
Keywords:
promise; reclassification;
Considerations 11 and 13
Extract:
«[S]elon une jurisprudence constante, le classement ou le reclassement d’un poste au sein d’une organisation internationale est laissé à l’appréciation du chef exécutif de cette organisation et le Tribunal n’exerce donc sur les décisions prises en cette matière qu’un contrôle restreint. Une telle décision ne pourra ainsi être censurée, en principe, que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées ou procède d’un détournement de pouvoir. 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 évaluation de ce type (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4960, au considérant 17, 4685, au considérant 4, 4221, au considérant 11, 3589, au considérant 4, ou 3294, au considérant 8). »
« [R]ien ne permettrait au Tribunal d’affirmer, eu égard aux limites de son contrôle en la matière fixées par la jurisprudence […], que l’évolution […] constatée des missions et des qualifications du requérant eût suffi à justifier un reclassement du poste occupé par celui-ci ».
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3294, 3589, 4221, 4685, 4960
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 5108
141st Session, 2026
International Atomic Energy Agency
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;
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[P]osts are not reclassified on the basis of the work, performance or the merit of the incumbent, but upon the level of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post itself […].”
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification;
Consideration 1
Extract:
"[T]he complainant asks the Tribunal to reclassify the post to grade P-5 as the desk audit had recommended, with retroactive effect. This claim is irreceivable as it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to make orders of this kind against organizations, and, moreover, the classification of posts and gradings are within the discretionary authority of the Director-General […]."
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; order a post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4974
139th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to reclassify his position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reclassification;
Judgment 4960
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges, firstly, the decision not to promote her in the 2018 annual promotion exercise and, secondly, the refusal to consider a reclassification of her post. She also alleges gender discrimination.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; post classification; promotion; reclassification;
Consideration 17
Extract:
Le Tribunal tient tout d’abord à rappeler que, à la différence d’une promotion, un reclassement du poste occupé par un membre d’une organisation internationale touche nécessairement à la structure de l’organisation concernée et est, de ce fait, tributaire de l’organisation générale du service (voir en ce sens, notamment, le jugement 1207, au considérant 9). Il est également de jurisprudence constante que tant le classement que le reclassement d’un poste au sein d’une organisation internationale est laissé à l’appréciation du chef exécutif de cette organisation et que le Tribunal ne réexaminera toute décision prise en la matière que pour des motifs limités (voir, notamment, les jugements 4685 (reclassement d’un poste), aux considérants 4 et 5, et 4186 (classement d’un poste), au considérant 6). Dans le jugement 3589, au considérant 4, le Tribunal a ainsi considéré que «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 (voir, par exemple, les jugements 1647, au considérant 7, et 1067, au considérant 2). 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 (voir, par exemple, le jugement 3294, au considérant 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1067, 1207, 1647, 3294, 3589, 4186, 4685
Keywords:
discretion; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4925
139th Session, 2025
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the implied refusal to reclassify his post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[L]e Tribunal relève que, à supposer même que la recevabilité de la demande en question eût pu être admise, le reclassement auquel celle-ci visait n’aurait eu, en tout état de cause, aucun effet concret. De fait, cette demande tendait, comme l’explicite le requérant lui-même dans ses écritures, à ce que ce reclassement soit prononcé à compter de la date de présentation de celle-ci, soit au 15 avril 2022. Or, le requérant ne pouvant être considéré, pour les raisons déjà exposées, comme étant encore fonctionnaire de l’UNESCO à cette époque, un tel reclassement aurait été dépourvu de toute conséquence effective.
Keywords:
reclassification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; post classification; reclassification;
Judgment 4919
139th Session, 2025
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew her short-term contract, not to reclassify her position and to reduce her salary in December 2020.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; reclassification; short-term;
Judgment 4825
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject his request for post classification.
Consideration 4
Extract:
There is no general right of a staff member of an international organisation to demand or request the reclassification of a post, particularly in the face of specific provisions identifying procedures for the reclassification of posts in normative legal documents creating the legal framework governing or regulating the employment of that staff member.
Keywords:
reclassification;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discretion; reclassification;
Judgment 4810
137th Session, 2024
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; reclassification;
Judgment 4654
136th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he decision to separate the complainant from service was taken by WIPO on the grounds that, in its view, most of the requirements which the complainant’s employment had met had gradually disappeared, so there was no reason to renew his contract. While, as the Organization correctly observes, staff members with temporary appointments do not hold budget posts, the Tribunal considers that the disappearance of the functions performed by the holder of such an appointment is still an abolition of post within the meaning of the applicable case law, in any event in the case of functions that have been performed on a continuous basis. It follows that, although WIPO was not under an obligation to redeploy the complainant, it was nevertheless required, in view of the length of his employment relationship with the Organization, to explore with him other employment options prior to his separation, even though the measure at issue was not a termination of a current appointment (see, for comparable situations, Judgments 3159, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; reclassification; separation from service;
Consideration 20
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that WIPO did not provide him with sufficient assistance to allow him to be redeployed in a new post after his contract ended.
As stated in consideration 16(c) above, the Tribunal considers that the Organization was required to explore other employment options with the complainant before terminating his appointment. However, the submissions show that WIPO was aware of this duty and made every effort to comply with it. In the aforementioned memorandum of 27 March 2012, HRMD “encourage[d] [the complainant] to submit [his] application for all the vacancy notices already published or to be published which interest[ed] [him] and for which [he] consider[ed] that [he had] the necessary qualifications”, bearing in mind that the only legal way for the complainant to obtain a post filled by a fixed-term appointment was to be successful in a recruitment competition. A pressing invitation to apply for vacant posts – this time including posts that might be offered by employers other than WIPO – was again sent to the complainant in the memorandum of 12 August 2016, which also stated that “HRMD [would] increase its efforts to identify a post matching [his] qualifications”. That advice was repeated in the letter from the Legal Counsel of 15 November 2016. The complainant did in fact apply for 12 competitions to fill posts at WIPO between 2011 and 2016 and, although none of his applications proved successful, the Organization cannot be held responsible, especially as it had enabled him to receive individual support from HRMD’s Performance and Development Section and a training designed to facilitate his career transition.
In light of these various findings, the Tribunal considers that the plea that WIPO was negligent in this respect cannot be accepted (see, for a comparable situation, [...] Judgment 3159, considerations 21 to 23).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3159
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment; reclassification;
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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; former official; 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;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
