Judgment No. 4026
Decision
1. The IAEA shall pay the complainant 11,000 euros in moral damages.
2. The IAEA shall pay the complainant 1,500 euros in costs.
3. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; post classification
Consideration 1
Extract:
The complainant initially applied for the joinder of her complaint with the complaint filed by Ms N. d. O. The IAEA agreed. Both complainants had jointly pursued their internal appeals to the Joint Appeals Board; the Joint Appeals Board issued a common report in respect of both appeals. The impugned decisions are in identical terms, but they were issued separately. The present complainant retired from the IAEA on 31 January 2014, a fact which she stated in her complaint. Ms N. d. O. had not. In September 2015, the present complainant informed the Tribunal that she no longer wished the complaints to be joined on the ground that, as she had retired, she was not in the same position as Ms N. d. O.
The Tribunal notes that although the complaints relate to the same subject matter and are based on virtually the same underlying facts, the arguments upon which this complainant relies and the relief sought in this complaint go beyond those in Ms N. d. O.’s complaint. The complaints do not raise the same issues of law and of fact and will therefore not be joined (see, for example, Judgment 3965, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3965
Keywords
joinder
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently stated that it is not its role to reweigh the evidence before an internal appeal body. In addition, where an internal appeal body has heard evidence and made findings of fact, the Tribunal will only interfere if there is manifest error (see Judgment 3439, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3439
Keywords
internal appeals body; evidence
Consideration 6
Extract:
[A] practice cannot become legally binding where, as in the present case, it contravenes specific rules which are already in force (see, for example, Judgment 3734, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3734
Keywords
practice
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The Tribunal stated the following, in Judgment 3102, consideration 7:
“[E]ven if a staff member may claim no right to promotion, promotion procedures must be conducted with due diligence and as swiftly as the normal workings of an administration permit. There is nothing to justify delaying for years a promotion which the staff member may legitimately expect and which naturally has a direct impact on his or her career prospects, unless this delay may be attributed to a fault on the part of the person concerned during the procedure (see Judgment 2706, under 11 and 12).”
[...]The reclassification process took too long and the IAEA’s explanation for the delay is unconvincing.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2706, 3102
Keywords
delay; promotion
|
