Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency¡¯s job classification tool had been used to reclassify the staff members¡¯ posts. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred when it had decided the case in the absence of the full document of the International Civil Service Commission¡¯s ¡°Master Standard for Classification¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Commissioner-General that the Classification Reports were relevant and sufficient for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determinations.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that notwithstanding the various anomalies in the reclassification process, the staff members had failed to show anything specific that had been unfair and identify a material impact on the contested decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, instead, the staff members reengaged in generic arguments that had already failed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT because of their irrelevance or insufficiency.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had rightly found that comparing the previous and current post descriptions had no bearing on the correctness of the reclassification because the assessment had been conducted based on the most up-to-date job description.
Regarding the decision not to provide sufficient staffing support to the post the second staff member encumbered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had found the respective part of the application not receivable ratione materiae, in part because it had not been subject to a request for decision review, and in part because it did not have any adverse legal effect on her own terms or conditions of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that she had not provided specific reasons supporting her request to reverse the impugned Judgment on this point.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Each of the two Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members contested a decision not to reclassify, at a higher grade, the post she encumbered, and the second staff member also contested a decision not to provide sufficient staffing support to her post.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2024/026, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dismissed both applications: in part, on the merits and, in part, as not receivable.
The staff members appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
It is not sufficient for the appellant to disagree with the impugned judgment. It is the appellant¡¯s burden to show in what respect and for what reasons the first instance tribunal erred.
In the absence of rules to govern the reclassification of posts, it lies within the broad discretion of the Agency to determine the criteria to be used.
The International Civil Service Commission¡¯s ¡°Master Standard for Classification¡± is recommendatory in nature and is not binding law for the Agency until and unless it is internalized in the Agency¡¯s legal framework.