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

Reorganisation (383,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Reorganisation
Total judgments found: 72

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4411


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment as a result of the abolition of her post.

    Consideration 15

    Extract:

    In its pleadings before the Tribunal, the FAO again provided no information regarding the restructuring of LOG. In particular, the FAO did not adduce any evidence as to whether LOG was, in fact, restructured and, if so, when the decision to restructure LOG was taken, in particular, if the restructuring had occurred prior to the decision to abolish the complainant’s post. These were facts within the knowledge of the FAO that the FAO opted not to provide. In this regard, the FAO submits that it was “not legally obliged” to provide the complainant with “documentation on the proposed restructuring”, referring to Judgment 3920, consideration 11, and it emphasises that she has not “adduced any evidence to discharge her burden of proving that extraneous factors motivated the decision to abolish her post”. However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 3415, consideration 9, “[w]hile international organisations are entitled to defend proceedings before the Tribunal, and even do so robustly, it is singularly unhelpful and inappropriate for an organisation to refuse to provide documents sought by a complainant that are patently relevant to his case and then argue that the complainant has not furnished relevant evidence in support of that case”.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3415, 3920

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; burden of proof; evidence; organisation's duties; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4405


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reorganisation; termination of employment;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal draws attention to its settled case law under which decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4180

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4402


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.

    The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.

    The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;



  • Judgment 4397


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.

    Considerations 10-12

    Extract:

    The claim that the [transfer] decision […] lacked legal basis is well founded. The Organisation relied on its general power to restructure its services to justify the complainant’s “reassignment” […]. The Organisation notes that the Tribunal’s case law forms part of its legal framework. However, the Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that “any authority is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends, suspends or repeals them. The general principle is that rules govern only what is to happen henceforth, and it is binding on any authority since it affords the basis for relations between the parties in law. Furthermore, a rule is enforceable only from the date on which it is brought to the notice of those to whom it applies (see Judgment 963, under 5). A competent body adopts rules in order to regulate its exercise of discretionary power in making specific decisions. It would radically contrast with the finality and essence of a rule (which is by nature general and abstract) to allow that in making a decision the authority can disregard a rule that was adopted in order to limit the authorities’ power concerning particular subjects and instead create an opportunity for expanding one’s power. Obviously, the procedure to adopt rules must be different from the procedure to make decisions, because rules are general and apply to many (undefined) and therefore must be published accordingly, whereas decisions are more precise and apply to few (defined)” (see Judgment 2575, consideration 6).

    In stating that “the legal basis for restructuring decisions [is] not to be found exclusively in the [Service Regulations]”, the Appeals Committee misinterpreted the Tribunal’s case law. While it is true that, in taking restructuring decisions, the executive head can also rely on some well-established principles enshrined in the case law (see, for example, Judgments 4086, consideration 11, 3488, consideration 3, and 2839, consideration 11), she or he is bound by the proper application of the relevant provisions in force. In the present case, the Organisation erred in not following the provisions in force at the time the […] decision was taken, when it created a new post without advertising the vacancy. […]

    The Organisation’s assertion that the impugned decision was lawful as it was based on its general power to restructure its services, in its generality, is not acceptable. The Organisation’s wide discretion still requires it to be exercised within the limits of the general principles of law and the existing provisions; otherwise, it becomes a way to circumvent the provisions in force, leading to arbitrariness. At the time the [transfer] decision was taken, there was no provision in the Service Regulations which allowed the EPO to reassign an employee, together with her or his post, to duties corresponding to her or his grade, or which allowed the EPO to create and fill a new post without following the provisions regarding transfers and creation of posts. […]

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 963, 2575, 2839, 3488

    Keywords:

    applicable law; patere legem; reorganisation; transfer;



  • Judgment 4395


    131st Session, 2021
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded to him for the cessation of his shift work activities following a reorganisation.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The Appeals Committee had referred to the principle stated by the Tribunal in Judgment 3373, considerations 8 and 9, that while an international organization necessarily has the power to restructure its departments, including by the redeployment of staff, when the new work arrangements have a direct financial impact on the affected official, an organization has to ensure, in accordance with the duty of care owed to its staff, that the implementation of the arrangements does not place the affected official in financial difficulty. If it does, an indemnity ex aequo et bono will enable the affected official to adjust to his changed financial circumstances (Judgment 3373, consideration 11). The Appeals Committee correctly stated that the EPO’s obligation to compensate the complainant arose with the cessation of his shift work as of 1 January 2014.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373

    Keywords:

    reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4180


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Consistent principle has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, as well as decisions concerning the selection of a successful applicant in a competition, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest upon a mistake of fact or of law or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring and decisions relating to it as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2933, under 10, and 3372, under 12, respectively).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3372

    Keywords:

    reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4139


    128th Session, 2019
    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 fixed-term contract as a result of her post having been abolished.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; reorganisation; termination of employment;

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, 3582, consideration 6, or 4099, consideration 3).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099

    Keywords:

    discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4099


    127th Session, 2019
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one concerned with the abolition of a position, lies at the discretion of the organization’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence. However, it cannot supplant the organization’s appraisal with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, and 3582, consideration 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4086


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    [A]lthough WIPO was probably primarily concerned with the results of the restructuring exercise and had no desire to “downgrade” the complainant’s post in the strict sense, it did not act in accordance with its duty of care towards the complainant.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; post description; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4009


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.

    Considerations 4-5

    Extract:

    A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
    Since a breach of rules concerning consultation of a staff representative body constitutes a procedural flaw, this plea lies within the scope of review defined above.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582

    Keywords:

    consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4008


    126th Session, 2018
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582

    Keywords:

    consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 4004


    126th Session, 2018
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his appeal against the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment, which was filed after he had accepted a mutually agreed separation.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; reorganisation; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 3992


    126th Session, 2018
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges a Note sent to all staff concerning a staffing plan.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he staffing plan is not an administrative decision subject to challenge. The staffing plan is just that – a plan developed by the Director-General setting out a proposed structure for the Technical Secretariat that also identifies and proposes the organisational and staffing changes needed to bring about the new structure for the Technical Secretariat. [...] [I]t is also observed that the text of the staffing plan does not include any decision. Moreover, the [...] decision of the Conference of the States Parties tasking the Director-General with the development of a staffing plan for the Technical Secretariat required that the implementation of any of the staffing plan proposals must be submitted to the OPCW’s policy-making organs for consideration.

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3940


    125th Session, 2018
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal’s case law concerning the abolition of a post in the context of a restructuring process was succinctly stated in Judgment 2830, under 6: “(a) An international organisation may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Reorganisation measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269, 1614, 2510 and 2742). The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter for the Organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1131, under 5, and 2510, under 10).
    (b) The Tribunal has consistently held that ‘there must be objective grounds’ for the abolition of any post. It must not serve as a pretext for removing staff regarded as unwanted, since this would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 1231, under 26, and the case law cited therein)’.”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2830

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3932


    125th Session, 2018
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.

    Considerations 21 & 26

    Extract:

    The determinative issue in this case is whether the evaluation of the complainant’s performance was procedurally flawed. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. As well, “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgment 3743, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3252, consideration 8, and the case cited therein).
    [...]
    It was only in the memorandum of 9 July 2012 that the complainant was informed of the extensive deficiencies in her performance both in terms of her duties and conduct. This letter cannot be viewed as a proper or fair evaluation for a number of reasons. First, it was not in compliance with the mandatory PEMS. Second, other than the deficiencies identified in the audit attributed to the complainant, the letter does not give any detail with respect to when and what the observations were and which interactions with other colleagues at headquarters and in the SAP gave rise to concerns. [...] Third, the unilateral determination that the eleven deficiencies identified in the audit were solely attributable to the complainant and that the renewal of her fixed-term contract was, therefore, in jeopardy, without providing the complainant with an opportunity to respond, was a clear breach of the complainant’s due process rights. This was further exacerbated by her supervisor’s and the Director, OSD’s failure to reply to or take into account the complainant’s extensive response to the alleged deficiencies attributed to her in the audit report.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 3743

    Keywords:

    abuse of power; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 3929


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;



  • Judgment 3928


    125th Session, 2018
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds and its purpose may never be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;



  • 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 6

    Extract:

    The Tribunal recalls that when an organization has to abolish a position occupied by a staff member holding a continuous appointment, it has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person, as a matter of priority, to another post matching her or his abilities and grade. The staff member in question may therefore claim to be appointed to any vacant post which she or he is capable of filling in a competent manner, regardless of the qualifications of the other candidates (see Judgment 133). If the attempt to find such a post proves fruitless, it is up to the organisation, if the staff member concerned agrees, to try to place her or him in duties at a lower grade and to widen its search accordingly (see Judgments 1782, under 11, 2830, under 9, and 3755, under 6).
    The written submissions show that the complainant’s qualifications and professional experience made him eligible for assignment to three vacant posts. The fact that numerous posts at AFRO were abolished is not in itself a valid reason for not reassigning the complainant.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 133, 1782, 2830, 3755

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; duty of care; reorganisation;



  • 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 3900


    125th Session, 2018
    Centre for the Development of Enterprise
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    As the Tribunal has consistently held, “[w]hen an organisation has to abolish a position occupied by a staff member holding a continuous appointment, it [...] has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person as a matter of priority to another post matching his or her abilities and grade.” (See Judgment 3755, under 6.) This possibility must be explored before a decision is taken to abolish a post (see Judgments 2294, under 9, 3169, under 10 and 13, and 3238, under 13) and it is up to the organisation to prove that it has made every possible effort to reassign the staff member (see Judgments 2830, under 9, 3169, under 14, 3238, under 14, and 3755, under 19).
    [...] As the institution was on the point of ceasing to exist, there could be no question of reassigning the complainant to another post within it. The Centre cannot therefore be criticised for not exploring that avenue.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2294, 2830, 3169, 3238, 3755

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; duty of care; permanent appointment; reorganisation;

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    By refusing to contemplate the slightest possibility of CDE staff members being employed in the new structure, and by even going so far as to oppose that option at a time when the nature of the new structure was still undefined, the Director-Curator breached the duty of care which an international organisation owes to its staff.

    Keywords:

    duty of care; reorganisation;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 28.09.2021 ^ top