Judgment No. 4099
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
abolition of post; complaint dismissed
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; reorganisation; judicial review; discretion
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] has no cause of action to challenge [the appointment of the incumbent] since, according to WHO’s undisputed submission, she did not apply for the post concerned.
Keywords
cause of action
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant raises numerous grievances against WHO, claiming that she was a victim of collusion between certain officials, unfavourable bias, misuse of authority, discrimination and reprisals.
However, as the Tribunal has stated on many occasions, allegations of this kind can only be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate them (see, for example, Judgments 1775, consideration 7, 2116, consideration 4(a), 2885, consideration 12, 3380, consideration 9, 3543, consideration 20, or 3914, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 2116, 2885, 3380, 3543, 3914
Keywords
burden of proof; misuse of authority; abuse of power
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]here are no grounds for ordering the production of the various documents requested by the complainant, which would have no bearing on the outcome of the case[.]
Keywords
disclosure of evidence
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant submits that, further to the abolition of her position, she ought to have benefited from the reassignment process provided for by Staff Rules 1050.2 et seq. But this plea, which can only concern the decision announcing the termination of her appointment and not the decision to abolish the position itself, is unfounded.
This reassignment process, the purpose of which is to propose new employment within WHO to staff members whose positions have been abolished, only applies, under the terms of Staff Rule 1050.2, to the holders of fixed-term appointments “who have completed at least five years of continuous and uninterrupted service”. However, [...] the complainant had not completed this minimum length of service at the date of notification of the decision to abolish her position.
As the Tribunal has previously observed, the terms of the [...] Rule cannot be given a broad interpretation creating eligibility for the reassignment process for employees who do not fulfil that stated condition (see Judgment 3159, consideration 9). Moreover,
although the complainant argues that, in Judgment 3582 [...] and Judgment 3688, the Tribunal rejected the application of the English version of this Rule on the grounds that it was more rigorous than the French version with regard to another point, this case law is not applicable to the present case, given that the complainant does not even fulfil the above-mentioned condition of the minimum length of service, which is common to both versions of the text.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3159, 3582, 3688
Keywords
interpretation of rules
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the appointment of the incumbent of post 2.70011 at that time, the cancellation of which is requested by the complainant, the Tribunal notes that this request is, in any case, irreceivable since this decision has clearly become final, no appeal having been filed against it with the internal appeal bodies within the applicable deadline [...].
Keywords
time bar
|
