|
|
 |
|
|
Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 91
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; leave; reassignment;
Judgment 4843
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was suppressed – challenges the decision to transfer another official to a post to which he believes he should have been reassigned as a priority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; reassignment;
Judgment 4841
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.
Consideration 6
Extract:
Judgment 3908 stated that:
“[...] [T]he Tribunal has long recognised the right of an international organisation to restructure and abolish positions [...] 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.”
This principle has been expressed in a different factual situation, namely in cases of anticipated termination of an appointment due to the abolition of a post (see also, in addition to Judgment 3908, Judgments 4094, consideration 4, and 4036, considerations 6 to 8), not in a case of non-renewal of a contract, as the present one. In another case of non-renewal in connection to the abolition of a post, the Tribunal held that the Organization “was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation”, but it did so having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, where the complainant had been “employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment [...] [b]ut […] nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization”, that is, more than 15 years […] (see Judgment 3159, consideration 20; see also Judgments 4654, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).
In the present case, the Organization was not bound by any specific provision to identify an alternative post. Where the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified, the direct reassignment of the staff member to another adequate post, if it exists, is not mandatory. […] of staff members is intrinsically linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged, and the availability of funding for the positions that they occupy”. However, as noted above and consistent with its duty of care, the Organization placed the complainant on special leave without pay after the expiry of her fixed-term contract […] to enable her to apply to post vacancies within IOM as an internal candidate.
The Organization also explored, albeit to no avail, other employment options for the complainant. The evidence in the file shows that the Organization made serious efforts and attempts in this respect, on multiple occasions. Namely, the complainant was encouraged to contact the Head of Talent Management for assistance, to update her personal history form, and to apply for any vacancies for which she considered herself to be qualified. The Head, Talent Management, maintained regular contact with the complainant regarding her preferences and the post vacancies to which she had applied, which included “consistent follow-up communication with management in Missions and Regional Offices” to support her candidacy.
As a result, the Tribunal cannot conclude that IOM violated its duty of care towards the complainant. To this extent, it is not sufficient […] to demonstrate that she was unsuccessful in applying for a range of positions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159, 3908, 4036, 4094, 4654
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Federation points out, and the facts make clear, the complainant’s position was never abolished but could no longer be funded, and consequently his contract was not extended. The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 11 of Judgment 4231, for example, that ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises when a post is abolished. As there is no specific provision to the contrary, the Federation had no obligation to reassign the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231
Keywords:
abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
Judgment 4819
138th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.
Considerations 16-18
Extract:
The complainant also argues that due to the senior position that he held in the Agency, his exemplary career path, the abrupt nature of his ousting and the “misleading”* nature of the entire reassignment procedure launched in his regard, he is justified in claiming compensation from the Organisation for the significant moral injury that he has suffered.
The Tribunal, first of all, considers indisputable that the complainant’s annual appraisals were always highly favourable [...].
Moreover, the abrupt manner in which the complainant was ousted is in no doubt either in the circumstances of the case.
Furthermore, the various decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019 are based on manifestly unlawful acts [...].
Lastly, the Tribunal observes that the manner in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted following his ousting also caused him obvious moral injury. [...]
In summary, it is clear that, during the reassignment procedure launched in his regard, the complainant had no prospect of being reclassified [...]. The Tribunal notes in this respect that Eurocontrol itself acknowledges, without providing any further explanation on this point, that “it was not feasible for the complainant to return to work in a structure in which his functions ha[d] been abolished” [...].
In the light of the above, the Tribunal must conclude that the overall context in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted can only have been very painful for him, which warrants compensation for moral injury.
Keywords:
abolition of post; moral injury; reassignment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; 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 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.
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 keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
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.
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;
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 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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
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 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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
