Promotion (269, 270, 271, 945, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 666,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Promotion
Total judgments found: 169
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 962
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Paragraph 4 of Circular 34 of 15 May 1979 says that "for the purpose of calculating seniority for advancement in the prescribed steps within the relevant grade, the period of part-time work will be taken into account in the same way as in the case of normal full-time work". The Tribunal holds that the EPO's practice of counting part-time work towards seniority for promotion on a pro-rata basis on the principle that promotion is a reward for service rendered is in no way at odds with the guidelines in the material circular as the complainant mistakenly argues.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PARAGRAPH 4 OF CIRCULAR 34 OF 15 MAY 1979
Keywords:
consequence; difference; part-time employment; professional experience; promotion; proportionality; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 957
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant contends that his professional experience was not properly reckoned in accordance with Circular 144 of 2 September 1985. He alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as his seniority was lower than that granted to someone with equivalent professional experience recruited as an A3 examiner. His plea fails "because the material provisions of the service regulations deal with promotion within the organisation as distinct from the attributions of grade and step on appointment: the comparison he is drawing is between staff members who are not in the same position in law."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 144
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; grade; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 953
66th Session, 1989
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The organisation has not discriminated against the complainant. Appointment is different from promotion and different rules may apply in determining the step due on appointment and the step due on promotion."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Consideration 2, Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.2 to grade A.3 as from 1 March 1987. He submits that the promotion should have taken effect as from 1 August 1985, the date by which his credited experience had come to eight years, in accordance with point ii.2 of Circular 144. However, as required by Article 49[7] of the EPO Service Regulations, the complainant also had to have at least two years' service in his grade in the office in order to qualify for promotion. As the complainant did not meet the latter requirement until 1 March 1987, the Tribunal held that the impugned decision was correct.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49.7 OF EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS; POINT II.2 OF EPO CIRCULAR 144 OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1985
Keywords:
condition; date; effective date; grade; professional experience; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 943
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was promoted from grade A.3, step 11, the highest step in that grade, where he had twelve months' seniority, to grade A.4, step 8, with no seniority. He claims the right to have the twelve months' seniority carried forward. The Tribunal holds that the claim is groundless. In accordance with the Service Regulations the complainant was promoted to "the lowest step in A.4 which carried a higher basic salary than what he had received at his step in A.3 increased by one twelve-monthly incremental step in that grade."
Keywords:
consequence; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step; top step;
Judgment 940
65th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"Though there are rules, promotion is in essence at the President's discretion."
Keywords:
discretion; executive head; promotion;
Judgment 908
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The rule on promotion in the EPO is not to take account of professional experience gained before the age of 25. The complainant contends that new guidelines calling for "minimum age requirements" superseded the rule. Having considered the new guidelines, the Tribunal finds that the 25-year rule has not been changed since the minimum age requirement has exactly the same effect.
Keywords:
age limit; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority;
Judgment 897
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
Following a promotion, the complainant was no longer entitled to a language allowance. In its place she was awarded a compensatory payment after an eighteen month delay. She regards the language allowance as part of her salary and seeks the grant of a further step. As in Judgment 737 the Tribunal dismisses her claims but awards her costs because of the delay in payment of compensation to which she was entitled.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 737
Keywords:
administrative delay; compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; consequence; costs; discontinuance; language allowance; payment; promotion; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 884
64th Session, 1988
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"An official has no right to promotion simply because he has the minimum seniority required for it. Seniority is not the only criterion for promotion and the President has discretion in the matter."
Keywords:
condition; discretion; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 870
63rd Session, 1987
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It would be in breach of an official's rights as such and a denial of his entitlements under the procedure for personal promotion to discount any of his service, including periods he may have spent on secondment to technical assistance projects. But the complainant is in a quite different case since he was not yet an official when employed on such projects."
Keywords:
equal treatment; field; general principle; headquarters official; official; personal promotion; professional experience; project personnel; promotion; status of complainant;
Judgment 860
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
As to identity in the cause of action, Mr [A.] notes that the Tribunal had in part rejected the complainants' plea of breach of good faith on the grounds that they had taken up duty after the new criteria had taken effect. Mr [A.] contends that this reasoning does not apply to him insofar as he had taken up duty before the change in rules. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is on this point a new cause of action; however it holds on the merits that a staff member has no right, save in exceptional cases, to demand that the rules on promotion in force at the time of appointment should never be modified.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 657
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; application for review; appointment; date; effective date; general principle; good faith; practice; promotion; provision; receivability of the complaint; res judicata; same cause of action; terms of appointment;
Judgment 845
63rd Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant claims 'rapid promotion' by virtue of the exception provided for in paragraph 64 of document CA/PV 10 concerning EPO staff members who were recruited before 1 January 1981. Inasmuch as the complainant was appointed after that date, he is not entitled to the promotion.
Keywords:
administrative instruction; appointment; date; effective date; enforcement; personal promotion; promotion;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Even if an examiner appointed after 1 January 1981 had been promoted contrary to the rapid promotion rule in CA/20/80, that is no reason for unlawfully promoting the complainant. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 614, a complainant may not rely on unlawful treatment which conferred benefit on other staff members: equality in law does not mean equality in the breach of it."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 614
Keywords:
appointment; date; difference; effective date; equal treatment; exception; flaw; general principle; personal promotion; promotion;
Judgment 824
62nd Session, 1987
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The Tribunal may not replace with its own the Director-General's assessment of a staff member's conduct, work and qualifications. All it may do in the matter of an appointment, promotion or transfer is review the decision to see whether it was taken without authority, or whether there was a procedural or formal flaw, or a mistake of law or of fact, or abuse of authority, or a mistaken conclusion from the evidence, or whether some essential fact was overlooked."
Keywords:
appointment; conduct; discretion; judicial review; promotion; qualifications; transfer; work appraisal;
Judgment 806
61st Session, 1987
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"The procedural flaw the complainant alleges is that the EPO will fully let the appeal proceedings drag on so as to thwart his hopes of promotion. The plea fails. The EPO may not be taken to task for awaiting the Tribunal's ruling on the earlier complaint." In addition the EPO resorted to an extraordinary procedure so that his promotion could be awarded.
Keywords:
administrative delay; consequence; lack of injury; performance report; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; rebuttal;
Judgment 755
59th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The distinction between the reckoning for starting step and the reckoning for promotion is plain from the actual wording of the rules. The distinction warrants different treatment, and there is no breach of the principle of equality where the treatment is a fair, reasonable and logical outcome of circumstantial differences."
Keywords:
appointment; difference; equal treatment; professional experience; promotion; reckoning; seniority; step;
Judgment 737
58th Session, 1986
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The EPO Service Regulations provide for the grant of a language allowance to employees in grades B.1 and B.2. 'Promotion compensation' may be applied to officials in grade B.3 to ensure that they do not suffer a loss of total net remuneration.
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; compensatory measure; discontinuance; language allowance; promotion; reduction of salary; salary;
Judgment 674
56th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant makes unsound objections to the application of guidelines presently in force. An official has no right to demand that rules in force at the time of joining the organisation not be amended. The Tribunal sees no evidence of breach of the principle of equal treatment, as claimed by the complaint. The reason why officials recruited at A.3 and those recruited at A.2 and promoted to A.3 do not fall under the same rule is that their factual positions are not the same.
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; equal treatment; promotion; provision; staff regulations and rules; terms of appointment;
Judgment 657
55th Session, 1985
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The wording of the relevant guidelines "is such that they cannot be treated as a mere statement of policy: they set objective criteria for dealing with individual cases."
Keywords:
administrative instruction; appointment; binding character; criteria; general decision; grade; promotion; step;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The job descriptions require five years' experience for promotion. It is clear from the guidelines that is a minimum requirement. "The President therefore acted correctly, when he came to apply the provisions on the minimum requirements, in adopting a requirement of eight years' experience for both recruitment and promotion [...] A requirement of eight years' experience is compatible with the rules."
Keywords:
appointment; condition; post description; professional experience; promotion;
Judgment 629
54th Session, 1984
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that on the evidence the supervisor did not break promises as alleged by the complainant in support of his claims: first of all, when assigning additional work to the complainant, his supervisor made no promise to him; furthermore, while he led the complainant to believe that he would suggest upgrading of his post, he appears to have done so. The claim for compensation fails.
Keywords:
post classification; promise; promotion;
Consideration 8
Extract:
For some years the complainant has been trying, to no avail, to have his post upgraded. "Although the evidence shows the complainant to be a fine staff member who has perhaps not fared as well towards the end of his career as he might reasonably have expected, that does not mean the iILO has been in any way at fault."
Keywords:
career; legitimate expectation; post classification; promotion; satisfactory service;
Judgment 596
52nd Session, 1984
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The rules on reckoning seniority are not among those intended to be inviolate. They do not have any far-reaching effect on the complainant's advancement. [...] Provisions on the conditions of promotion do not create acquired rights for an official, they are subject to amendment, and the staff member may expect them to be amended."
Keywords:
acquired right; amendment to the rules; promotion; provision; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 594
51st Session, 1983
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is not every reformulation of the duties of a post that produces the result that there are increased duties and responsibilities within the meaning of [the material provision in the Staff Manual]. What must be shown is that the totality of enumerated duties, taken in the light of the everyday functioning of the post, in all the circumstances surrounding such functioning, represents an increase in the duties and responsibilities of the post. This the complainant has been unable to show."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; condition; post classification; post description; promotion;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
