Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 91
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4036
126th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests UNESCO’s decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment.
Considerations 11-12
Extract:
An obvious inference to be drawn from the fact that he applied is that he was interested in the position. Whether his interest was acute, moderate or even marginal was, for present purposes, beside the point. He was sufficiently interested to make the application and submit to interview. [...]
It is not the Tribunal’s role in a case such as the present to engage in the discretionary evaluation of whether an applicant for a post should be appointed to it. However, the evaluation of the complainant in the preceding commentary does not point to a lack of skills or qualifications that would necessarily preclude appointment. This evaluation was as if the complainant was being assessed in a competitive process and, for present purposes, without paying any regard to the fact that the complainant was then a member of staff whose post had been abolished and was facing the termination of his employment if another post within the Organization could not be found. This failure to pay regard to the complainant’s position manifests a material flaw in the redeployment process broadly analogous to the flaw identified in Judgment 3908.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
Keywords:
reassignment;
Considerations 7-10
Extract:
There are many judgments of the Tribunal concerning the obligations of an international organisation towards staff whose positions have been abolished as a result of a reorganization or restructuring. A recent one is Judgment 3908. [...]
[A]s noted in Judgment 3908, consideration 14, a document such as an Administrative Circular and what it might say about steps to be taken to redeploy staff cannot circumscribe exhaustively UNESCO’s obligations towards staff whose positions have been abolished.
The complainant was offered one post in the redeployment process [...], but he declined the offer. UNESCO relies on this offer as part of its argument that it took adequate steps to redeploy the complainant. The complainant expressed interest in two other positions, which had been listed on the HRM website and to which he could have been reassigned as part of the redeployment process set out in Administrative Circular AC/HR/28 and Memorandum DDG/2013/13. He was unsuccessful in securing appointment to those positions, as they were ultimately filled by officials whose positions also had been abolished. No criticism can be made of UNESCO in following this approach (see the observations of the Tribunal in consideration 16 of Judgment 3908 [...]).
[...] However, as discussed in Judgment 3908, considerations 14 to 16, an organisation’s obligation to find another position for a member of staff whose post has been abolished extends, at least in principle, to any vacant position within the organisation involving duties which the member of staff would be qualified and able to perform. In this context, UNESCO argues that the complainant should have, but failed to, challenge in separate proceedings his non-appointment to any, or all, of these four additional positions. However, for the reasons just given concerning the extent of the organisation’s obligation, he is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment within UNESCO.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment;
Judgment 3962
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to downgrade her, reassign her to another position and place her on an additional period of probation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary procedure; downgrading; reassignment;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t is open to the complainant to impugn the redeployment process, as he does in his pleas under his second heading, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3727).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3727
Keywords:
abolition of post; reassignment; termination of employment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Further criticism is made by the complainant about the failure to consider him for alternative assignments and reference is made to several positions he says he could have been redeployed to. However, his pleas on this topic are at a highly generalised level and do not provide a foundation for a conclusion that the redeployment process was legally flawed.
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; material injury; reassignment;
Judgment 3918
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 9
Extract:
An organisation which has restructured, abolished positions, and is in the process of trying to reassign staff members whose positions have been abolished is under a positive duty to communicate with them in a way that promotes the likelihood of reassignment (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 14, 3439, consideration 9, and 3755, consideration 9). It is no answer to suggest that the staff member is under a duty to inform herself or himself and failed to do so. However, again, this is another manifestation of the flawed reassignment process by which the complainant was deprived of the opportunity of being reassigned.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[H]aving established a procedural rule about the time the reassignment process should take, WHO was bound to comply with it (see, for example, Judgment 2170, consideration 14), whatever, in practical terms, might be thought to have been positive elements accruing to the complainant. There is no reason to doubt that the length of time taken did cause additional stress and anxiety to the complainant. For this, the complainant is entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 15,000 United States dollars.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
moral injury; patere legem; reassignment; time limit;
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 5
Extract:
[W]hile the Organization established a reassignment committee – the GRC – in order to reclassify the staff members whose posts had been abolished, there is no evidence that the Committee met with the complainant. The Tribunal’s case law has it that administrative bodies have the duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, 3439, under 9, and 3755, under 9). In this case, the complainant had no opportunity to participate in the reassignment process. The Tribunal therefore considers that WHO breached its obligations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Consideration 10
Extract:
WHO implicitly extended the reassignment period. Even though there is no established time limit within which a decision on reassignment must be taken following the end of the reassignment period, the Organization cannot wait more than three months before informing the person concerned of the decision. By doing so in this case, WHO failed to observe the time limit for the complainant’s reassignment pursuant to the Staff Rules and thus violated the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see, for example, Judgment 2170, under 14). The complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for moral injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
patere legem; reassignment; time limit;
Judgment 3916
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Staff Rule 1050.6 states that “[t]he reassignment period will end within six months from its commencement”. In this case, the complainant was notified of the abolition of his post on 17 January 2012 and the decision stating that the reassignment process had been unsuccessful was issued on 30 August 2012, seven and a half months later. Thus, the Organization implicitly extended the reassignment period. It cannot reasonably contend that this period ended on 18 July 2012, given that the complainant was not informed of the termination of his appointment until 30 August 2012. The Tribunal therefore considers that WHO failed to observe the time limit for the complainant’s reassignment pursuant to the Staff Rules and thus violated the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti (see, for example, Judgment 2170, under 14). The complainant is therefore entitled to compensation for moral injury.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2170
Keywords:
moral injury; patere legem; reassignment; time limit;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he file shows that while WHO established a reassignment committee – namely, the Global Reassignment Committee – with a view to reassigning the staff members whose posts had been abolished, there is no evidence that the Committee met with the complainant. The Tribunal’s case law has it that administrative bodies have a duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, 3439, under 9, and 3755, under 9). In this case, the complainant had no opportunity to participate in the reassignment process. The Tribunal therefore considers that the Organization breached its obligations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3439, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty to inform; reassignment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
Pursuant to Staff Rule 1050.2, “[w]hen a post held by a staff member with a continuing appointment, or by a staff member who has served on a fixed-term appointment for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more, is abolished or comes to an end, reasonable efforts shall be made to reassign the staff member occupying that post, in accordance with procedures established by the Director-General [...]”. In this case, it was therefore incumbent on the Organization to make every effort to reassign the complainant, who had been employed by WHO without interruption from 2004 to 2012, when his appointment was terminated. The Tribunal notes that by creating new posts to be filled solely through local recruitment, the Organization, through its own actions, limited the reassignment options of AFRO administrative officers, including the complainant, whose posts were abolished. In so doing, it restricted the opportunities for reassignment whereas it was incumbent on it to seek or expand them. WHO therefore failed to abide by its own rules.
Keywords:
abolition of post; patere legem; reassignment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the record, including the report of the HBA, shows that the GRC recommended that the complainant not be reassigned because his retirement date was less than three years away. Furthermore, it rejected his candidature for a two-year appointment without explanation. Therefore, WHO breached the duty of care it owed to the complainant.
Keywords:
duty of care; reassignment;
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 3903
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the termination of his fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 24
Extract:
[T]here is no evidence in the record to support the assertion that a review of the requirements of newly created positions was undertaken to ascertain whether the complainant had the necessary qualifications for any of those positions. It would be expected that the complainant would have at least been informed that other options had been considered. More importantly, it is also noted that the possible options considered were limited to the newly created positions as a result of the restructuring. The duty contemplated in the case law is aimed at finding other employment within the broader organisation and is not limited to newly created positions as a result of restructuring. As stated in the case law, the failure to explore with the complainant other possible options within the Court was a breach of the ICC’s duty to treat the complainant with dignity and respect (see, for example, Judgment 2902, under 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3865
124th Session, 2017
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 appointment due to the redundancy of her post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he right to make payment in lieu of notice conferred by the Handbook, does not absolve the Global Fund of its more general obligation to do all it can to reassign an official whose position has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 3754, consideration 16, and 3755, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 3755
Keywords:
reassignment;
Judgment 3769
123rd Session, 2017
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his contract following the abolition of his post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is important to note that the Organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations. What is important is that the reason for the non-renewal be valid (and not an excuse to be rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see, for example, Judgments 1128, under 2, 1154, under 4, 1983, under 6, 3582, under 9, 3586, under 10, 3626, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1128, 1154, 1983, 3582, 3586, 3626
Keywords:
non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
Judgment 3759
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment following the abolition of her position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reassignment;
Judgment 3755
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment owing to the abolition of his position.
Consideration 9
Extract:
It is to no avail that the defendant organisation refers to consideration 23 of [...] Judgment 2933, in which the Tribunal held that a reassignment committee is under no obligation to inform staff members participating in a reassignment process of every step taken to reassign them. Such discretion is fully justified when exhaustive information about the steps taken with a view to reassignment might arouse false hopes in the job seeker. In this case, however, the conduct denounced is plainly incompatible with the administrative bodies’ duty to explore all existing reassignment options with the person in question (see Judgments 2902, under 14, and 3439, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 2933, 3439
Keywords:
duty to inform; reassignment;
Judgment 3754
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, challenges the decision to terminate his continuing appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The loss of employment by the abolition of a post can be particularly acute for a person who has been employed by the one organisation for a very lengthy period and is of advancing years. It could be all the more acute if the area or field of employment has a significant technological component in which the technology is evolving continuously. At a high-level of generality, an organisation’s duty has, in relation to reassignment an official whose post has been abolished, been described as “[doing] its utmost to find a post matching the complainant’s qualifications” (see Judgment 2830, consideration 9), or “[doing] all that it can” to reassign the official (see Judgment 3437, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2830, 3437
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; reassignment;
Judgment 3727
123rd Session, 2017
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, whose post was abolished following a restructuring exercise, challenges the new final decision taken by the Secretary General pursuant to Judgment 3208.
Consideration 15
Extract:
What the Federation does not do in its pleas and evidence is to demonstrate that it corresponded or otherwise communicated with the complainant about specific available positions encouraging the complainant to apply for or pursue them or to demonstrate that, at the time, it undertook any sort of analysis of positions which might, at least potentially, have been positions to which the complainant might be transferred as contemplated by Article 11.3.2 of the Staff Regulations. It was not sufficient for the Federation to take the approach, as it apparently did, that it was incumbent on the complainant to identify other positions for which he might be suitable and then apply for those positions. The Federation bore the onus of showing the complainant was not able to remain in the Federation’s service in some capacity (see Judgment 2830, consideration 9). A much more active role was required of the Federation in circumstances where a long-serving member of staff towards the end of his career was facing the prospect of his employment being terminated because of redundancy. The Federation’s obligations have been described as requiring it to do “its utmost to find [an official facing redundancy] a post which matched his skills and level of responsibility” [...] (see Judgment 2090, consideration 7). The Federation failed in its duty towards the complainant and, in this respect, the complainant is entitled to moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2090, 2830
Keywords:
abolition of post; burden of proof; duty of care; moral injury; reassignment; respect for dignity;
Judgment 3699
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer him to a Senior Advisor post.
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is to no avail that the EPO attempts to show that the complainant’s duties were of grade A6 level. First, it invites the Tribunal to interpret the job description appended to the Service Regulations liberally as, in the defendant’s view, it would not be possible for the Office to perform its functions properly “if it were obliged to apply the generic post descriptions strictly to the letter, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case in question”. Next, it poses the question, tailored to this particular case, of “whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant’s new role was reasonably commensurate with his grade”, and not that of whether it corresponded exactly to grade A6 duties. Lastly, it asserts that “the strategic responsibilities inherent in the new post of Senior Advisor for planning and preparation of the unitary patent, though involving no management responsibilities, were nevertheless at the same level as those of a grade A6 post”. These inconsistent arguments, submitted by the defendant to convince the Tribunal that the complainant’s new duties were at grade A6 level, poorly disguise the fact that this was not at all the case. The defendant itself acknowledges in its submissions that “the complainant’s new role did not entail all of the characteristics of a grade A6 post according to the generic description provided in the Service Regulations”. The Tribunal concludes that the complainant’s new duties were not commensurate with grade A6. The complainant did not run a prominent organisational unit covering several specialised fields; he was neither a Principal Director nor a Chairman of a Board of Appeal; he could not take decisions in particularly difficult or important cases. Hence, the contested transfer decision must, as the complainant requests, be ruled unlawful.
Keywords:
post classification; reassignment;
Judgment 3686
122nd Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s final decision on her internal appeal in relation to the issuance of new terms of reference altering the functions of her post, arguing that the compensation she was offered was inadequate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 3605
121st Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign him retroactively to UNIDO Headquarters in Vienna and to recalculate his salary and allowances accordingly, leading to a deduction from his remuneration.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; deduction; reassignment; salary;
Judgment 3594
121st Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to abolish her post and not to renew her fixed-term appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment;
Judgment 3588
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of damages awarded by WHO following his internal appeal against the decision not to match him to a new position after the abolition of his post and to terminate his appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 3488
120th Session, 2015
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Administration’s decision to transfer him, asserting that his transfer was the result of harassment and retaliation.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"These provisions confirm the Tribunal’s well established principle that, in the interest of an international organisation, an executive head of the organisation has a wide discretion regarding restructuring, staff appointments and assignments. 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. The Tribunal will be circumspect in reviewing a reassignment or transfer (see Judgments 883, under 5, 1556, under 5, and 2635, under 5). A reassignment may be influenced by the need to eliminate tensions that compromise the functioning of a unit (see Judgments 2229, under 3(a), and 2635, under 7). However, the organisation 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 as that which she or he performed in his previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see Judgments 2191, under 3, 2594, under 14, 2819, under 8, and 2839, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 883, 1556, 2191, 2229, 2594, 2635, 2819, 2939
Keywords:
assignment; reassignment; reorganisation;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
