Judgment No. 1590
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal will be especially cautious "where the issue is not transfer but the determination or alteration of the duties to be performed on a given post. Here the duties required of the complainant are not different from those provided for at the date of recruitment, the organisation enjoying the widest discretion in matching duties to needs."
Keywords
amendment to the rules; assignment; transfer; post description; post; judicial review; discretion; organisation's interest
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The complainant contends that what the impugned decision entailed was really transfer and a change of post. He is mistaken. The duties of a post are determined by the description of it in the letter of appointment and by any later changes: see Judgments 1103, under 3 and 4, and 1146, under 4 and 7."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1103, 1146
Keywords
decision; case law; amendment to the rules; transfer; post description; appointment; post
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant says that the parties' clear intent was to put him on a post of terminologist. He is wrong. "He must have realised that the Organisation creates a post by express decision, and that he himself was put on a translator's post even though he was set, at least to begin with, to work on terminology. The post description made it plain that the Organisation might give him other duties without changing his post."
Keywords
decision; assignment; post description; appointment; post; intention of parties
Consideration 7
Extract:
The rule that any decision adversely affecting a person shall state the grounds on which it was based requires "that he be aware of them so that he may - for one thing - challenge them on appeal. He may learn of them from some other document, or from prior proceedings, or orally, or even later in answer to his objections".
Keywords
decision; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; staff member's interest; purport; purpose
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant contends "that it was improper of the Organisation to accuse him of unsatisfactory work without bringing disciplinary proceedings which would have afforded him safeguards; he was denied his right of reply and suffered a hidden disciplinary sanction. The Organisation has never accused the complainant of any sort of conduct warranting disciplinary action but merely of poor performance. So the change in his duties did not amount to a hidden disciplinary sanction".
Keywords
right to reply; assignment; work appraisal; misconduct; unsatisfactory service; conduct; disciplinary procedure; hidden disciplinary measure
| 
