ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 79

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • 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 GBA [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;



  • Judgment 3916


    125th Session, 2018
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    Staff Rule 1050.6 states that “[t]he reassignment period will end within six months from its commencement”. In this case, the complainant was notified of the abolition of his post on 17 January 2012 and the decision stating that the reassignment process had been unsuccessful was issued on 30 August 2012, seven and a half months later. Thus, the Organization implicitly extended the reassignment period. It cannot reasonably contend that this period ended on 18 July 2012, given that the complainant was not informed of the termination of his appointment until 30 August 2012. The Tribunal therefore considers that 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:

    moral injury; patere legem; reassignment; time limit;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    [T]he file shows that while WHO established a reassignment committee – namely, the Global Reassignment Committee – with a view to reassigning 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 a 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 the Organization breached its obligations.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    Pursuant to Staff Rule 1050.2, “[w]hen a post held by a staff member with a continuing appointment, or by a staff member who has served on a fixed-term appointment for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more, is abolished or comes to an end, reasonable efforts shall be made to reassign the staff member occupying that post, in accordance with procedures established by the Director-General [...]”. In this case, it was therefore incumbent on the Organization to make every effort to reassign the complainant, who had been employed by WHO without interruption from 2004 to 2012, when his appointment was terminated. The Tribunal notes that by creating new posts to be filled solely through local recruitment, the Organization, through its own actions, limited the reassignment options of AFRO administrative officers, including the complainant, whose posts were abolished. In so doing, it restricted the opportunities for reassignment whereas it was incumbent on it to seek or expand them. WHO therefore failed to abide by its own rules.

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; patere legem; reassignment;

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    The Tribunal notes that the record, including the report of the HBA, shows that the GRC recommended that the complainant not be reassigned because his retirement date was less than three years away. Furthermore, it rejected his candidature for a two-year appointment without explanation. Therefore, WHO breached the duty of care it owed to the complainant.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; reassignment;



  • Judgment 3908


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish his post and terminate his appointment.

    Considerations 16-19

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal has long recognised the right of an international organisation to restructure and abolish positions (see, for example, Judgment 2742, consideration 34). This will imperil the continuing employment of the occupants of those abolished positions. However a concomitant of that right to abolish positions is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff who occupy those abolished positions. That extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organisation for which those staff have the experience and qualifications. The Tribunal accepts that there may be other disqualifying criteria. One might be, in a particular set of circumstances, that the number of staff whose positions have been abolished exceeds the number of available positions. However the imprecise concept of “unsuitability” as assessed by a selection committee as if it were a competition for initial appointment, might not be enough to disqualify a staff member unless it can be demonstrated that there is a real and substantial reason why a staff member in an abolished position will not be able to perform the duties of the available position satisfactorily notwithstanding they have the required qualifications and experience. This would be all the more so, as is the case in these proceedings, where the functions of the new position reflect some of the functions of the position which is being abolished and there has been no material adverse assessment of the performance of the staff member in the performance of those functions in the abolished position.
    [...]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the ICC did not take adequate steps to reassign the complainant after the abolition of his post. To reject his candidature for a number of available positions on the basis that he was not suitable as part of an assessment in a competitive selection process, falls short of what was required. There is no reason, discernible from the pleas, why the complainant could not have been reassigned or redeployed to one of the new positions to which some of the functions were assigned from his abolished position and in particular the Deputy Legal Counsel position discussed in the preceding consideration.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3903


    125th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    [T]here is no evidence in the record to support the assertion that a review of the requirements of newly created positions was undertaken to ascertain whether the complainant had the necessary qualifications for any of those positions. It would be expected that the complainant would have at least been informed that other options had been considered. More importantly, it is also noted that the possible options considered were limited to the newly created positions as a result of the restructuring. The duty contemplated in the case law is aimed at finding other employment within the broader organisation and is not limited to newly created positions as a result of restructuring. As stated in the case law, the failure to explore with the complainant other possible options within the Court was a breach of the ICC’s duty to treat the complainant with dignity and respect (see, for example, Judgment 2902, under 14).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 3865


    124th Session, 2017
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment due to the redundancy of her post.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [T]he right to make payment in lieu of notice conferred by the Handbook, does not absolve the Global Fund of its more general obligation to do all it can to reassign an official whose position has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 3754, consideration 16, and 3755, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 3755

    Keywords:

    reassignment;



  • Judgment 3769


    123rd Session, 2017
    ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    It is important to note that the Organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations. What is important is that the reason for the non-renewal be valid (and not an excuse to be rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1128, under 2, 1154, under 4, 1983, under 6, 3582, under 9, 3586, under 10, 3626, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1154, 1983, 3582, 3586, 3626

    Keywords:

    non-renewal of contract; reassignment;



  • Judgment 3759


    123rd Session, 2017
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reassignment;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top