|
|
 |
|
|
Methodology (855,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Methodology
Total judgments found: 9
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that the principles governing the limits on the discretion of international organizations to set adjustments in staff pay are clearly established in its case law. The following has been stated in Judgment 1821, consideration 7:
“Those principles may be concisely stated as follows:
(a) An international organisation is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all other principles of international civil service law: Judgment 1682 [...] in 6.
(b) The chosen methodology must ensure that the results are ‘stable, foreseeable and clearly understood’: Judgments 1265 [...] in 27 and 1419 [...] in 30.
(c) Where the methodology refers to an external standard but grants discretion to the governing body to depart from that standard, the organisation has a duty to state proper reasons for such departure: Judgment 1682, again in 6.
(d) While the necessity of saving money may be one valid factor to be considered in adjusting salaries provided the method adopted is objective, stable and foreseeable (Judgment 1329 [...] in 21), the mere desire to save money at the staff's expense is not by itself a valid reason for departing from an established standard of reference: Judgments 1682 in 7 and 990 [...] in 6.”
[...]
The decision in this respect to apply the inflation rate observed in France at the same time can, further, be viewed as enabling the achievement of stable, predictable and transparent results.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 990, 1265, 1329, 1419, 1682, 1821
Keywords:
adjustment; discretion; methodology; reckoning; salary; scale;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 23
Extract:
[I]t can be inferred from the Tribunal’s case law (see Judgment 3538, considerations 11 to 15) that, where the impugned decision is based on the opinion of an expert – as it is, in the present case, the Actuary – the complainants cannot merely submit their divergent analysis in order to refute that opinion. They should rather provide “evidence from authorities of equivalent weight”. Only such evidence might potentially be apt to demonstrate the possible flaws in the expert opinion underpinning the impugned decision. In the present case, the complainant’s arguments against the methodology adopted by the Actuary are not supported by any expert opinion of equivalent weight.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3538
Keywords:
actuarial valuation; expert inquiry; methodology; pension;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[I]t must be taken into account that a calculation methodology of premiums in a pension scheme is a technical matter, subject to change, that cannot be dealt with once and forever in a law; it is therefore lawful that the Rules do not directly provide for a methodology, but refer to administrative bodies responsible for adopting the methodology.
Keywords:
methodology; pension;
Judgment 4277
130th Session, 2020
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who has been receiving a retirement pension since 1 December 2017, impugns her “pay slip” for January 2018.
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
The complainant alleges a breach of the principle, upheld in the Tribunal’s case law, that the methodology chosen by an organisation to set salary adjustments for its staff must ensure “stable, foreseeable and clearly understood” results. That principle applies both to the remuneration of international civil servants and their retirement pensions (see Judgments 1821, under 7, and the judgments cited therein, and 2793, under 20). In support of this plea, she submits that there were four successive reforms in a period of only eight years, that the Organisation exercises its discretion without adequate safeguards and that the actuarial report contains blatant errors.
As the Tribunal recalled in Judgment 4134 (under 26), the requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, under 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, under 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof” (see Judgment 2420, under 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1821, 1912, 2420, 2793, 3676, 4134
Keywords:
methodology; pension; salary;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Considerations 26-28
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Considerations 20-22
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Considerations 25-27
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s noted in Judgment 1160, consideration 11, [...] if the ICSC adopts a methodology, although not binding on an organization merely by virtue of the ICSC’s approval of it, the organization’s decision to apply it is one that it is not free afterwards to disclaim. Moreover, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1000, consideration 12:
“Some principles there is ample precedent for will bear restating. One is that when impugning an individual decision that touches him directly the employee of an international organisation may challenge the lawfulness of any general or prior decision, even by someone outside the organisation, that affords the basis for the individual one (cf. Judgments 382 [...], 622 [...] and 825 [...]). The present complainants may accordingly challenge the lawfulness of the general methodology and of the 1987 survey of Vienna, which, taken together, constitute the basis in law of the decisions under challenge.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 382, 622, 825, 1000, 1160
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; methodology;
Considerations 26-28
Extract:
It is desirable to refer to some of the principles that govern the Tribunal’s consideration of cases such as the present. First, an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments for its staff provided that it meets all the principles of international civil service law (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 3324, consideration 16). Further, the Tribunal has noted that cases such as the present can raise issues of a highly specialised nature being “based on the technical judgment to be made by those whose training and experience equip them for that task” and that it will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization (see, for example, Judgment 3360, considerations 4 and 5). While an international organization is free to choose a methodology, system or standard of reference for determining salary adjustments it must be a methodology which ensures that the results are stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent (see, for example, Judgments 1821, consideration 7, and 2095, consideration 13). The requirement that the results must be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood or transparent does not mean a salary regime is fixed once and for all and is incapable of change (see Judgment 1912, consideration 14), or that this requirement excludes reasonable variations in the results yielded (see Judgment 3676, consideration 6). Moreover “a methodology cannot be applied without a degree of flexibility and without leaving some room for interpretation by the competent authority, which [is] entitled to take into account the imbalances generated by past applications of the adopted methodology in order to try to attenuate the effects thereof and properly to implement the Noblemaire principle” (Judgment 2420, consideration 15).
The Tribunal has recognised that “[t]he whole subject of post adjustment is of great complexity and [...] the constant changes in the factors that are considered relevant, mean that the methodology will probably never attain perfection” (see Judgment 1459, consideration 10; see also Judgment 1603, consideration 6).
However, if the organization is relying on an external body for advice and assistance, it nonetheless needs to ensure these principles have been applied (see, for example, Judgment 1765, consideration 8, where the Tribunal said in relation to erroneous calculation by the ICSC):
“[The organization] has the duty of checking the lawfulness of any decision by another body on which it bases its own decision. So too must it check the adequacy of action by that other body to correct any mistake it may have made, and make sure that such corrective action respects the rights of staff. Authority for that is in Judgment 826 [...] under 18. If the [ICSC]’s original reckoning was unlawful, so is a second one that fails to redress fully the wrong.”
To the same effect was Judgment 1713, consideration 3, and later, Judgment 2303, consideration 7. In Judgment 1713 the Tribunal observed that a decision on local pay cannot “stand if, say, it overlooks or misconstrues some particular factor, or if some method is applied for the wilful contrivance of lower figures of local pay, or if corners are cut for the sake of saving time, but to the detriment of staff interests” (consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 826, 1459, 1603, 1713, 1765, 1821, 1912, 2095, 2303, 2420, 3324, 3360, 3676
Keywords:
adjustment; methodology; post adjustment; salary;
Consideration 49
Extract:
[I]n the documentary material before the Tribunal, the alteration of the operative percentage in the gap closure measure was without real explanation as to the rationale in statistical, mathematical, methodological or otherwise scientific terms. [...] No explanation was proffered as to why 5 per cent was appropriate up to and including 2015 and yet no longer appropriate in 2016 and 2017. The reduction of the threshold percentage to 3 per cent was not substantiated nor transparent.
Keywords:
adjustment; methodology;
Judgment 3883
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.
Consideration 17
Extract:
It must be borne in mind, that the Tribunal’s role is not to evaluate independently itself the methodology and its application. These are technical issues beyond the remit of the Tribunal and its role is more limited (see Judgment 3360, consideration 4). There is no single hard and fast approach to the application of the Flemming principle and some discretion must be afforded over method (Judgment 1713, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1713, 3360
Keywords:
flemming principle; judicial review; methodology; salary;
|
|
|
|
|
