Abolition of post (379, 380, 381, 382, 649, 383,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Abolition of post
Total judgments found: 173
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4848
138th Session, 2024
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.
Keywords:
abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
Keywords:
abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
Judgment 4845
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment following the suppression of his post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In [...] Judgment 4844, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Director of Human Resources Management [...] suppressing the complainant’s post and the decision of the Secretary General [...] confirming that earlier decision at the end of the internal appeal procedure. As a consequence of that setting aside, the decision [...] terminating the complainant’s appointment on the grounds that it had not been possible to reassign him and the Secretary General’s decision [...], both taken on the basis of the decision to suppress his post, were also rendered unlawful.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4844
Keywords:
abolition of post; termination of employment;
Judgment 4844
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation 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 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 4139, consideration 2, 4099, consideration 3, 3582, consideration 6, 2933, consideration 10, 2510, consideration 10, and 1131, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099, 4139
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
Considerations 6 and 8
Extract:
Interpol maintains that the distinction between the decision to suppress the post and the subsequent decision to terminate the appointment following this suppression is artificial. [...] Those are two separate decisions, one of which does not necessarily lead to the other, and which, in principle, do not take place simultaneously.
[...]
To the extent that the decision to suppress the post did not, in itself, bring about the termination of appointment, the Tribunal will not award material damages for that setting aside.
Keywords:
abolition of post; termination of employment;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). As a result, the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment because the Tribunal respects an organization’s discretion to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). Thus, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3940, consideration 3). A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). An international organization may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Restructuring measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff. The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter of an organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4004, consideration 2, and 3940, consideration 3).
In brief, decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Non-renewal decisions may be set aside only if they were taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; if they rest upon an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3299, consideration 6). In turn, restructuring decisions, including the abolition of posts, may be set aside only if they are not taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, if they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or if they constituted an abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 2933, consideration 10, and 2742, consideration 34).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2933, 3448, 3586, 3940, 3948, 4004, 4009, 4462, 4587
Keywords:
abolition of post; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
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.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Still with respect to the decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019, the complainant considers, secondly, that they are based on spurious grounds. The purportedly substantial reorganization of the NTS Division which the complainant headed was purely fictitious, his functions were not in fact abolished as had been indicated to him at the meeting of 5 July 2019, and no other staff member in his Division was really disadvantaged by the introduction of the new Technology Division. He also considers that a reorganization due to be finalized in September 2019 could not, under any circumstances, give rise to a decision to abolish his functions on 5 July 2019, that is more than three months in advance. Accordingly, the complainant takes the view that he was never afforded the opportunity to ascertain the real reasons for which his functions were abolished, as the Joint Committee for Disputes also unanimously observed. In this regard, the complainant refutes each of the various grounds relied on in turn by Eurocontrol, whether in the decisions of 5 July 2019 or in its written submissions to the Tribunal, and notes a contradiction between the grounds set forth successively by the Organisation.
The Tribunal notes that in the memorandum of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019, it was firstly stated that following the reorganization of the Agency, the NTS Division would be abolished, as would the complainant’s functions. It was indicated secondly, in an email of 8 August 2019, that following the regrouping of all of the Agency’s information technology activities, the role of Head of the new Technology Division had become a substantially different role from that of Head of the NTS Division, in particular because that new division was approximately three times the size of the former NTS Division. Thirdly, the Agency argued that the organizational changes introduced meant that new skills were required for managerial positions, and that the “leadership” style desired and required by the Director General no longer matched the profile of the complainant, who was more a technical expert than a “leader”.
Thus, the specific justifications given concerning the various decisions of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019 changed as time went by, in line with his criticisms. The initial outright abolition of his functions became a substantial modification of the duties to be performed and, finally, turned into a modification of the “leadership” style required of the incumbents of managerial posts. This is all the more regrettable given that the complainant clearly stated, and this is not disputed by Eurocontrol, on the one hand, that from 2014 to 2017 he had headed the NTS Division, which already consisted of some 150 staff members and in which all of the Agency’s information technology services were grouped together before it was decided to split them, and, in July 2019, to regroup them again, and, on the other hand, that his various performance evaluation reports, in particular those relating to this period, had always been very positive, in particular with regard to his “leadership” capacity.
It follows that the various grounds on which the above-mentioned decisions are purported to be based cannot be considered valid and adequate within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4108, consideration 3, and 1817, consideration 7).
This plea is, therefore, well-founded.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
At the outset, it should be recalled that consistent precedent has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall 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 constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4405, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, or 4004, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal has found that the abolition of any post must be based on objective grounds and must not serve as a pretext for removing staff regarded as unwanted, since this would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, 4353, consideration 6, 2830, consideration 6(b), and 1231, consideration 26).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant further argues [...] that the decision to place him on “administrative leave” is, in itself, unlawful, given that there is no provision for this administrative status in the Staff Regulations and the Rules of Application thereof. He notes in this regard that he is the only Agency staff member to have been removed from his functions and placed on “administrative leave” in the context of the reorganization carried out in 2019.
In its reply, Eurocontrol contends that the mere fact that “administrative leave” is not expressly provided for by the Staff Regulations does not, however, render its application unlawful. It argues that this measure formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments detailed in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and was a legitimate means of managing complex situations caused by restructuring measures resulting in the abolition of the functions of the official concerned and in which immediate reassignment was not possible, in particular because of the complainant’s high grade at the time of the reorganization. [...]
There is no provision in Article 5 that the official concerned may, while his potential reassignment is being reviewed, be placed on temporary “administrative leave”, as such a status is not provided for by the Staff Regulations or the Rules of Application. As the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes rightly pointed out in their report of 8 July 2020, this status does not appear in the exhaustive list of possible statuses to which staff members may be assigned, as laid down by Article 37 of the Staff Regulations, and while the term “administrative leave” is used in Article 10 of Rule of Application No. 6 concerning the terms and conditions governing leave, it is used in an entirely different context, namely where an official is placed on “administrative leave granted on an exceptional basis by the Agency’s Medical Officer”, pursuant to Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, since the determination of the administrative status assigned to a staff member must be considered an essential part of her or his status, the Organisation is also mistaken in its mere assertion that the measure of placement on temporary “administrative leave” formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations [...].
It follows that the plea whereby the decision to place the complainant on temporary “administrative leave” is tainted with an error of law is also founded.
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; special leave;
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;
Consideration 7
Extract:
With regard to the various decisions of 5 July 2019 to abolish the complainant’s functions at the time it was decided to reorganize the Agency, to launch a reassignment procedure in his regard and to place him on “administrative leave” with immediate effect, the complainant alleges, firstly, a violation of his right to be heard, which Eurocontrol disputes.
However, the Tribunal finds that the written submissions of the parties show that the purpose of the discussion that took place on 5 July 2019 – the day on which the Director of the DNM announced the reorganization of the Agency’s structure to staff – was clearly not to hear the complainant about the proposed course of action to be taken in his regard, but simply to notify him of the decisions already taken concerning him. Similarly, it appears that the requests for explanations made by the complainant in the following days also went unanswered.
In this respect, Eurocontrol submits that the purpose of the exercise in this case was to reorganize its services and that the right to be heard individually could not, in any event, be considered in the context of such a general decision.
However, the Tribunal notes that, beyond the reorganization of services exercise decided upon for managerial reasons, the decisions taken on 5 July 2019 had a fundamental impact on the complainant’s situation, since they had, in particular, led to the abolition of his functions, which he strongly contests. These decisions had thus an adverse impact on the complainant, for which reason he should have had the opportunity to state his views before they were taken (see, for example, Judgments 4622, consideration 10, 3124, consideration 3, 1817, consideration 7, and 1484, consideration 8).
The plea that the right to be heard was violated is therefore well-founded as far as the decision to abolish the complainant’s functions is concerned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation; right to be heard;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
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 19
Extract:
It is clear from the submissions that the functions of statistician that he performed in HRMD no longer met that department’s requirements at the time when the decisions were taken. The IT projects on which the complainant mostly worked – namely those in the “ERP portfolio” – were due to finish in June 2017. Furthermore, new applications meant that WIPO’s various administrative units could now compile their own human resources statistics rather than needing as a matter of course to consult a specialist in this field employed within HRMD, with the result that HRMD no longer needed to have a full-time statistician. Contrary to what the complainant submits, the job description for his post, as drawn up in 2008, had been rendered obsolete, given that the content of a document of this type does not confer an entitlement to the continued existence of the post to which it relates.
It thus appears that sufficient reasons underlay the abolition of the complainant’s post to justify that decision and accordingly that the disputed decision not to renew his appointment was itself based on valid, objective reasons, in compliance with the requirement recalled in consideration 16(b) [...].
Keywords:
abolition of post; motivation; outsourcing; post description;
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 keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
Judgment 4608
135th Session, 2023
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decision to maintain Office Instruction No. 10/2016, promulgating, inter alia, the discontinuation of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Section.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that 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 shall 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 constitute abuse of authority. The Tribunal shall not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4405, consideration 2, 4004, consideration 2, and 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4180, 4404, 4405
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation;
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.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
[T]he case law has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to review only on limited grounds by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will not supplant an organisation’s view with its own. 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, for example, Judgment 4353, under 6). It has also been stated that in order to achieve greater efficiency or to make budgetary savings international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules, and, in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgment 4353, under 7).
Following the decision to abolish a post, there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment (see, for example, Judgment 4353, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4353
Keywords:
abolition of post; organisation's duties; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 4587
135th Session, 2023
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 16
Extract:
With respect to the findings of the Appellate Body that there were valid, objective and substantiated reasons for discontinuing in-house translation and thus ultimately not renewing the contract of the complainant, notwithstanding the latter’s understandable disagreement, it remains that, based on the analysis conducted by the Administration and the costs evaluations made, there were justifications for the outsourcing of translation services that, in fact, permitted significant savings while reducing translation times as well as increasing the number of translated languages. This is supported by the written submissions filed as well as by the annexes. In Judgment 3376, at consideration 2, the Tribunal indicated that “[t]he outsourcing of certain services, that is to say the use by an organisation of external contractors to perform tasks that it feels unable to assign to officials hired under its staff regulations, forms part of the general employment policy that an organisation is free to pursue in accordance with its general interests. The Tribunal is not competent to review the advisability or merits of the adoption of such a measure in a specific field of activity”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3376
Keywords:
abolition of post; outsourcing; reorganisation;
Judgment 4499
134th Session, 2022
Customs Co-operation Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; late appeal;
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 23
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s request for the payment of the remaining 37 days of her unused annual leave, as the Appeals Committee correctly noted, it was due to the unlawful termination of her appointment that the complainant could not use those days of leave prior to the expiry of her appointment. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to be paid the remaining 37 days of leave.
Keywords:
abolition of post; annual leave; leave; material injury; termination of employment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; termination of employment;
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;
Consideration 22
Extract:
As stated in Judgment 3613, consideration 46, “[i]t is well established in the Tribunal’s case law that ‘international organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members’ (Judgment 2861, under 91; see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371, 2475 and 2720)”. Based on the nature of the content of the complainant’s communications with the Administration subsequent to her receipt of the email of 8 May 2017, it is clear that the unexpected notification of the abolition of her post and the termination of her appointment was a serious affront to the complainant’s dignity and caused her significant personal harm, for which she is entitled to an award of moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 396, 1875, 2371, 2475, 2720, 2861, 3613
Keywords:
abolition of post; moral injury; respect for dignity;
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 6
Extract:
[T]he decision to terminate the complainant’s appointment, which was based on the abolition of her position, is without legal foundation and is therefore also unlawful.
Keywords:
abolition of post; termination of employment;
Judgment 4369
131st Session, 2021
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgment 3905, consideration 15) and “the abolition decision is an administrative decision challengeable with the Tribunal in accordance with Article II of its Statute”, provided that the complainant has exhausted the internal means of redress that may be available to her or him (see also Judgments 3928, consideration 14, and 3929, consideration 13). Thus, since an internal appeal was not lodged in the prescribed period, the decision to abolish the complainant’s post has become final and cannot be contested in these proceedings.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3905, 3928, 3929
Keywords:
abolition of post; internal remedies exhausted;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; redeployment; termination of employment;
Judgment 4353
131st Session, 2021
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint dismissed;
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;
Judgment 4303
130th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded for the unlawful abolition of her post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure; termination of employment;
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 7
Extract:
WHO raises a threshold issue about the receivability of the complaint insofar as it might be thought to contain allegations of harassment, malice, prejudice and retaliation being pursued independently of the challenge to the impugned decision to abolish the complainant’s post. However, it is relatively clear that the allegations of harassment and related matters are intended to establish an aspect of the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish the post and the complainant’s claims are cast no wider. It is open to the complainant to follow this course (see, for example, Judgment 3688, consideration 1).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3688
Keywords:
abolition of post; harassment; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
