|
|
 |
|
|
Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 86
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4799
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power, and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4798
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members, involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). The Tribunal may interfere only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority, or an obviously wrong inference from the evidence. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5 and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The general principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning decisions to reassign staff have most recently been discussed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595:
“Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 2). An international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 11). It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgment 3601, under 20). [...]
The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgment 4253, under 3). While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization (see Judgment 2635, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635, 3601, 4253, 4427, 4595
Keywords:
judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer;
Consideration 8
Extract:
One legal issue presented for consideration by the pleas is whether the power to reassign an official to such a position is in any way conditioned or qualified in circumstances where a competition is on foot to fill the position. While it is not explicitly put this way by the complainant, it is the import of one of her pleas. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the direct appointment of a person to a position in circumstances where it denied the complainant “a right to compete” (see generally Judgments 4069, 3742, 3288 and 2959). By parity of reasoning, and notwithstanding the unequivocal bias just referred to, the decision to appoint the complainant, by way of reassignment, to the position in Cameroon deprived those who had entered the competition following the 27 December 2017 vacancy announcement of their right to compete and for each to have their candidature assessed on its merits. Deprivation of that right would involve a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith (see Judgments 4619, consideration 8, and 4618, consideration 8) to those who entered the competition. Consistent with the existence of this duty to act in good faith, the power to fill a position by reassignment, should not be interpreted as authorising reassignment
to a position when a competition is on foot to fill the very same position. There is an implied limitation on the exercise of the power to reassign. Thus, the decision of 12 January 2018 to reassign the complainant to the position in Cameroon was not lawful. Accordingly, the decision of 16 March 2018 to terminate her employment because she had refused the reassignment, was tainted by the unlawfulness of the reassignment decision and the decision to terminate should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3288, 3742, 4069, 4618, 4619
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; reassignment; selection procedure; termination of employment; transfer;
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 4599
135th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post, reassign her, terminate her contract including the decision to defer the date of her termination, and to reject her claims of retaliation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment;
Consideration 19
Extract:
Regarding the reassignment of staff, the Tribunal has recognized the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization to reassign staff in the interest of the organization. The discretion is enshrined in Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations which states that all staff members are subject to the authority of the executive head of the organization and to assignment by her or him to any of the activities or offices of the organization. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal has however emphasised that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications (Judgment 4240, under 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4240
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4523
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to temporarily reassign him to another post following his allegations of harassment against his supervisor, as well as administrative measures taken in relation to his performance during his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he temporary reassignment, upon the complainant’s own request and at the same grade and step, though the title of the position had been originally mislabelled, was not motivated in any way by bad faith, nor abuse of authority. The complainant provides no evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal is satisfied that the temporary reassignment was neither a demotion, nor a hidden disciplinary sanction.
Keywords:
reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment;
Judgment 4345
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to extend his temporary reassignment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] finds that the IAEA did not breach its duty of care and stresses that it is not always possible to cater to the needs of each individual employee, as the product or result of the work being done is often justifiably considered a higher priority over the individual’s personal interests (see Judgments 2587, under 10, 3192, under 22, 3447, under 11, and 4316, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2587, 3192, 3447, 4316
Keywords:
duty of care; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment;
Judgment 4305
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment due to the abolition of his post and the failure to reassign him to another suitable vacant position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
Consideration 13
Extract:
WHO challenges the receivability of the complainant’s allegations concerning some of his applications made both during and after the expiry of the reassignment period, on the ground that the selection processes for those positions are not relevant to the impugned decision. However, the complainant is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment (see Judgment 4036, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4036
Keywords:
new claim; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Regarding the applicable principles, the Tribunal has recognized the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization, in the interest of the organization, to reassign staff members. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member only on the limited grounds that the decision was taken ultra vires or shows a formal or procedural flaw or mistake of fact or law, if some material fact was overlooked, if there was misuse of authority or an obviously wrong inference was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal will therefore be circumspect in reviewing a reassignment or transfer. The Tribunal has recognized that reassignment may be influenced by the need to eliminate tensions that compromise the functioning of a unit. It has however reiterated that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications. The Tribunal has further stated that the responsibilities that attach to posts are comparable where on an objective basis the level of the duties to be performed is similar, and that the exercise to reclassify a post or to redefine the duties attaching thereto 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. 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, Judgments 4086, considerations 10 and 11, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3488, 4086
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he complainant was reassigned because of what the Administration reasonably saw as the managerial necessity to eliminate tensions between the complainant and the DXD/MER (see Judgment 2635, consideration 7) and in the interest of the complainant’s health.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635
Keywords:
reassignment;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The complainant submits that her reassignment to the post of Senior Advisor violated WHO’s post classification standards. She presents arguments and a narrative that are highly technical to support this assertion and essentially invites the Tribunal to undertake a technical assessment of that evidence. The Tribunal has consistently stated that such an exercise falls within the purview of persons whose expertise by training and experience fits them to undertake it (see, for example, Judgments 4024, consideration 3, and 4083, consideration 8). It is however within the Tribunal’s purview to determine, as stated in Judgment 3488, consideration 3, whether in keeping with its duty of care to the complainant, in reassigning her WHO/UNAIDS showed due regard, in both form and substance, for her dignity, particularly by providing her with work of the same level as that which she performed in her previous post and matching her qualifications. That is, whether WHO/UNAIDS ensured that the responsibilities that attached to her new post were comparable, on an objective basis, to the level of the functions that she performed in her previous post (see, for example, Judgment 1343, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1343, 3488, 4024, 4083
Keywords:
duty of care; post classification; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; reassignment;
Consideration 16
Extract:
The [Global Board of Appeal] [...] erred when it did not further consider whether, on the basis of the significantly different responsibilities, WHO/UNAIDS had breached its duty of care towards the complainant. The Tribunal has stated in Judgment 2191, consideration 3, that organizations must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed. It should have been obvious to the GBA from its own analysis that the complainant’s responsibilities had been reduced materially because of the absence of supervisory or managerial functions from the Senior Advisor post so that that post was not objectively comparable with her previous Director, TIN, post (see, for example, Judgment 4086, consideration 14). There is no evidence in the file to show that the complainant’s legitimate objections to the proposed reassignment, particularly concerning her level of responsibility, were properly addressed by the Administration before that decision was imposed on her on 28 January 2016. The complainant’s allegation that in reassigning her the Organization breached its duty of care towards her is therefore well founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2191, 4086
Keywords:
duty of care; reassignment; respect for dignity; transfer;
Judgment 4231
129th Session, 2020
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term appointment and to place him on special leave with pay until his contract expired.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant argues that the FAO had a duty to reassign him to another post. He states that “even if the Director-General no longer wished [him] to remain in [his] position, there was a duty to consider [him] for other postings as an internal candidate in need [of] placement” and that regarding his placement on special leave with pay, “it should be noted that this occurred without any undertaking by the Administration to see if there were some other post[s] for which [his] services could be effectively utilized”, given that there were posts for which he was fully suited. He insists that this was one procedural issue which the Appeals Committee failed to consider in detail reflecting disregard for due process. These pleas however fail. Ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises only when a post is abolished (see, for example, Judgment 4037, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4037
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
Judgment 4149
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and to place him on special leave with pay until the expiry of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 13
Extract:
If a member of staff is, under the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, entitled to be considered for reassignment, a bare contractual provision which limits, qualifies or removes that right has no legal effect. The Tribunal has recently said in Judgment 4018, consideration 7, that “a clause [of a contract of employment] which, as is the case here, contravenes the staff rules and regulations is unlawful and therefore cannot apply, even if the contracting parties clearly intended it to do so”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4018
Keywords:
contract; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
Judgment 4097
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to end her participation in the reassignment process and to terminate her fixed-term appointment further to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant refers in her pleas to the Tribunal’s judgments which emphasise the need for an organization to apply rules concerning the abolition of posts and the reassignment of staff with considerable generosity towards the affected staff members (see, for example, Judgments 133 and 388). While these and many other judgments of the Tribunal concerned permanent staff, they were judgments given at a time when the preponderance of staff in international organizations were permanent staff. There is, presently, a greater mix of staff of differing status in international organizations. However, simply because some staff are not permanent, it does not follow that those other classes of staff of differing status should be afforded no protection by principles developed by the Tribunal in circumstances where their post is abolished and attempts are being made to reassign them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 133, 388
Keywords:
abolition of post; analogy; organisation's duties; reassignment; status of complainant;
Consideration 13
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision not to extend the complainant’s reassignment period was flawed. It is not a question of whether it was likely or not that the complainant would be placed in a position emerging from the reorganization. The power to extend a reassignment period is a discretionary power but it is not unfettered. It must be exercised having regard to the principles developed by the Tribunal. An organization that is endeavouring to reassign a staff member whose position has been abolished is obliged to do all that it can to find another position. It has been stated in one judgment of the Tribunal that the organization must do “its utmost” to find another position (see Judgment 3754, consideration 16, citing Judgment 2830, consideration 9). Indeed, the Tribunal has said that it is incumbent on the organization to prove that the affected staff member was not able to remain in the organization’s service (see Judgment 2830, consideration 9). These concepts are comprehended by the expression “reasonable efforts” in Staff Rule 1050.2. Even if it was only remotely possible, in the circumstances of a case such as the present when the reorganization was incomplete, that the reorganization might create a position to which the complainant could have been appointed, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of an extension of the reassignment period, as proposed by the RRC or for an even longer period.
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Ordinarily, when a post is lawfully abolished and reasonable and appropriate steps are undertaken, albeit without success, to reassign the official who held the post to another position within the organization, then the ensuing termination of employment can be taken to have been lawful.
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment; termination of employment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recently addressed the question of what were an organization’s obligations in relation to reassignment in Judgment 4036, considerations 7 and 8, citing Judgment 3908. Several propositions emerge from Judgment 4036 which are consistent with earlier case law. The first is that normative legal documents promulgated within an organization cannot alone circumscribe the obligation of the organization to explore other employment options within the organization for staff whose positions have been abolished. The second is that an organization has a duty to apply processes biased in favour of the staff member whose position has been abolished and which are likely to promote appointment to another position. The third and related proposition is that an organization has an obligation to deal fairly with staff who occupy an abolished position which ordinarily extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications. This last proposition is qualified by matters referred to in consideration 16 of Judgment 3908. The fourth proposition is that it is not the Tribunal’s role to actually assess whether a staff member whose position has been abolished was suitable for another position to which they might have been reassigned. Rather, it is to ascertain whether any or adequate consideration was given to the fact that the complainant was then a member of staff whose post had been abolished and was facing the termination of her or his employment.
Keywords:
abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 4094
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish her post and to terminate her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recently addressed this question in Judgment 4036, considerations 7 and 8, citing Judgment 3908. Several propositions emerge from Judgment 4036 which are consistent with earlier case law. The first is that normative legal documents promulgated within an organization cannot alone circumscribe the obligation of the organization to explore other employment options within the organization for staff whose positions have been abolished. The second is that an organization has a duty to apply processes biased in favour of the staff member whose position has been abolished and which are likely to promote appointment to another position. The third and related proposition is that an organization has an obligation to deal fairly with staff who occupy an abolished position which ordinarily extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications. This last proposition is qualified by matters referred to in consideration 16 of Judgment 3908. The fourth proposition is that it is not the Tribunal’s role to actually assess whether a staff member whose position has been abolished was suitable for another position to which they might have been reassigned. Rather, it is to ascertain whether any or adequate consideration was given to the fact that the complainant was then a member of staff whose post had been abolished and was facing the termination of her or his employment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908, 4036
Keywords:
abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment 4088
127th Session, 2019
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him to the General Service category upon the expiry of his fixed-term appointment to a position in the Professional category.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; general service category; professional category; reassignment;
Judgment 4037
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her temporary appointment.
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant [...] submits that UNESCO breached its duty to “reclassify” her. In her view, UNESCO did not make sufficient efforts to find her a new assignment, although she was “pursuing a career” within the Organization. UNESCO counters that, in any event, the duty of “reclassification” relied on by the complainant arises only when a post is abolished. The Tribunal observes that the Organization is correct in this assertion and notes that, contrary to the complainant’s contention, the Organization did seek alternative solutions to the non-renewal of her appointment.
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
Judgment 4036
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests UNESCO’s decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
An obvious inference to be drawn from the fact that he applied is that he was interested in the position. Whether his interest was acute, moderate or even marginal was, for present purposes, beside the point. He was sufficiently interested to make the application and submit to interview. [...]
It is not the Tribunal’s role in a case such as the present to engage in the discretionary evaluation of whether an applicant for a post should be appointed to it. However, the evaluation of the complainant in the preceding commentary does not point to a lack of skills or qualifications that would necessarily preclude appointment. This evaluation was as if the complainant was being assessed in a competitive process and, for present purposes, without paying any regard to the fact that the complainant was then a member of staff whose post had been abolished and was facing the termination of his employment if another post within the Organization could not be found. This failure to pay regard to the complainant’s position manifests a material flaw in the redeployment process broadly analogous to the flaw identified in Judgment 3908.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
Keywords:
reassignment;
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
There are many judgments of the Tribunal concerning the obligations of an international organisation towards staff whose positions have been abolished as a result of a reorganization or restructuring. A recent one is Judgment 3908. [...]
[A]s noted in Judgment 3908, consideration 14, a document such as an Administrative Circular and what it might say about steps to be taken to redeploy staff cannot circumscribe exhaustively UNESCO’s obligations towards staff whose positions have been abolished.
The complainant was offered one post in the redeployment process [...], but he declined the offer. UNESCO relies on this offer as part of its argument that it took adequate steps to redeploy the complainant. The complainant expressed interest in two other positions, which had been listed on the HRM website and to which he could have been reassigned as part of the redeployment process set out in Administrative Circular AC/HR/28 and Memorandum DDG/2013/13. He was unsuccessful in securing appointment to those positions, as they were ultimately filled by officials whose positions also had been abolished. No criticism can be made of UNESCO in following this approach (see the observations of the Tribunal in consideration 16 of Judgment 3908 [...]).
[...] However, as discussed in Judgment 3908, considerations 14 to 16, an organisation’s obligation to find another position for a member of staff whose post has been abolished extends, at least in principle, to any vacant position within the organisation involving duties which the member of staff would be qualified and able to perform. In this context, UNESCO argues that the complainant should have, but failed to, challenge in separate proceedings his non-appointment to any, or all, of these four additional positions. However, for the reasons just given concerning the extent of the organisation’s obligation, he is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment within UNESCO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; reassignment;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t is open to the complainant to impugn the redeployment process, as he does in his pleas under his second heading, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3727).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3727
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment; termination of employment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Further criticism is made by the complainant about the failure to consider him for alternative assignments and reference is made to several positions he says he could have been redeployed to. However, his pleas on this topic are at a highly generalised level and do not provide a foundation for a conclusion that the redeployment process was legally flawed.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; reassignment;
Judgment 3918
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
An organisation which has restructured, abolished positions, and is in the process of trying to reassign staff members whose positions have been abolished is under a positive duty to communicate with them in a way that promotes the likelihood of reassignment (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 14, 3439, consideration 9, and 3755, consideration 9). It is no answer to suggest that the staff member is under a duty to inform herself or himself and failed to do so. However, again, this is another manifestation of the flawed reassignment process by which the complainant was deprived of the opportunity of being reassigned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[H]aving established a procedural rule about the time the reassignment process should take, WHO was bound to comply with it (see, for example, Judgment 2170, consideration 14), whatever, in practical terms, might be thought to have been positive elements accruing to the complainant. There is no reason to doubt that the length of time taken did cause additional stress and anxiety to the complainant. For this, the complainant is entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 15,000 United States dollars.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
moral injury; patere legem; reassignment; time limit;
Judgment 3917
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Organization established a reassignment committee – the GRC – in order to reclassify the staff members whose posts had been abolished, there is no evidence that the Committee met with the complainant. The Tribunal’s case law has it that administrative bodies have the duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, 3439, under 9, and 3755, under 9). In this case, the complainant had no opportunity to participate in the reassignment process. The Tribunal therefore considers that WHO breached its obligations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
WHO implicitly extended the reassignment period. Even though there is no established time limit within which a decision on reassignment must be taken following the end of the reassignment period, the Organization cannot wait more than three months before informing the person concerned of the decision. By doing so in this case, WHO failed to observe the time limit for the complainant’s reassignment pursuant to the Staff Rules and thus violated the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see, for example, Judgment 2170, under 14). The complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for moral injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
patere legem; reassignment; time limit;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
