Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 86
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 3159
114th Session, 2013
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Considerations 9, 19 and 20
Extract:
"The terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 are clear. They impose a duty on the Organization in specified circumstances. The duty is to use reasonable efforts to reassign a staff member whose post is being abolished. The specified circumstances are, as to a staff member on a fixed-term appointment, that the staff member has served “for a continuous and uninterrupted period of five years or more”. The expression “continuous and uninterrupted” fairly emphatically focuses attention on service of a particular character. There is no basis in the language of the Staff Rule to treat its operation as ambulatory in the sense that a person who has been on a fixed-term appointment but has not served in that capacity for a continuous and uninterrupted period of at least five years is nonetheless a person to whom the Organization, by operation of the Rule, is under a duty to make reasonable efforts to reassign. [...] However, a staff rule cast in terms of Staff Rule 1050.2 does not preclude the possibility that the Organization is under a duty requiring proactive conduct in circumstances not comprehended by the Rule itself. WHO does not put in issue that there is a general duty of loyalty, as the complainant contends. What might be required of an organisation in broadly similar circumstances was considered by the Tribunal in Judgment 2902. [...] The same reasoning can be applied in the present case. The complainant and WHO found it mutually acceptable, and with benefits accruing to both, for the complainant to be employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment. But the complainant nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization. In those circumstances, WHO was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Staff Rule 1050.2
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902
Keywords:
abolition of post; contract; duration of appointment; enforcement; fixed-term; general principle; intention of parties; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment; short-term; staff regulations and rules; successive contracts;
Judgment 3041
111th Session, 2011
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
Abolition of post and termination of appointment following reorganisation / Failure on the part of the Organization to take a final decision on the complainant's appeal / Excessive delay in communicating to the complainant the outcome of the internal appeal procedure.
"The decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff person occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual's rights. These rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision, reasons for the decision and an opportunity to contest the decision. As well, subsequent to the decision there must be proper institutional support mechanisms in place to assist the staff member concerned in finding a new assignment."
Keywords:
abolition of post; complainant; decision; duty of care; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; right; right of appeal; safeguard; staff member's interest;
Judgment 2982
110th Session, 2011
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"[The complainant] was replaced virtually immediately even though his contract had somewhat less than two months to run [...] and he had earlier been told that he was to be provided with assistance for the project; he was given no warning of the decision; he was not heard on the question and adequate reasons were not provided. Replacing the complainant in these circumstances constituted '[a]ctions [...] directed at actively damaging [his] personal and/or professional reputation' and, thus, falls within the definition of 'harassment' in General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: IOM General Bulletin No. 1312 of 26 March 2002
Keywords:
decision; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; harassment; moral injury; organisation's duties; professional injury; reassignment; warning;
Judgment 2907
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, international organisations may undertake restructuring by reducing or reassigning their staff, even for the sole purpose of making budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgment 2156, under 8). 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2156
Keywords:
budgetary reasons; case law; consequence; due process; implied decision; official; organisation; organisation's duties; reassignment; reorganisation; right; staff reduction; written rule;
Judgment 2902
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12 and 14
Extract:
"The complainant argues that the Organization breached its duty of care in failing to accommodate him in another post or in a manner less drastic than the non-renewal of his appointment. [...]
The Organization had no obligation under the 200 Series of the Staff Rules to find an alternative post for the complainant. However, it had a duty to explore with him possible options prior to his separation. The failure to do so was an affront to his dignity and showed a lack of respect for him as a highly regarded long-serving staff member."
Keywords:
abolition of post; compensation; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; respect for dignity; seniority; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
Judgment 2885
108th Session, 2010
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"[I]t is convenient to note that there is a "misuse of authority where an administration acts for reasons that are extraneous to the organisation's best interests and seeks some objective other than those which the authority vested in it is intended to serve" (see Judgment 1129, under 8). It may be accepted that it is a misuse of authority if a post is abolished in order to circumvent the relevant procedures applicable in the case of unsatisfactory performance. Even so, "misuse of authority may not be presumed and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it" (see Judgment 2116, under 4)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1129, 2116
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; grounds; misuse of authority; organisation's interest; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2856
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 11 and 13
Extract:
"At the outset, the complainant's grievance was in relation to his appointment, as a result of restructuring, to [a] position [...] at grade P.3. Although the complainant has advanced a number of arguments in support of his complaint, at this juncture, he holds a post at grade P.4 and throughout the material time he has retained his personal P.4 grade. [T]he central issue is whether there is merit to the complainant's contention that he should have been placed in a «genuine P.4 position»."
"The fundamental flaw in the complainant's position is that he has not adduced any evidence that he had the specific knowledge and skills required to function in a «genuine P.4 position» within the Organization¿s new Oracle-based system. [...] As well, not only has he not adduced any evidence to show that he has the requisite knowledge and skills to work in an Oracle-based system, the evidence shows that he had difficulty performing a number of tasks attributed to his new position."
Keywords:
abolition of post; evidence; lack of evidence; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; status of complainant;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[I]t is useful to recall, as stated in Judgment 2510, under 10, that «an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269 and 1614)»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1614, 2510
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
"In its submissions the Organization details the comprehensive training strategy that was established to enable the complainant to strengthen his skills. [T]hat strategy included participation in a number of courses and a half-time secondment to the IRIS project to allow the complainant exposure to the new system."
"The Tribunal concludes that, in the circumstances, the Organization did its utmost to respect the complainant's dignity and good name and not to cause him any harm. Despite the fact that the complainant did not possess the requisite skills, the grade P.3 position was designated at grade P.4 and his personal grade was not altered."
Keywords:
decision; grade; organisation's duties; post held by the complainant; qualifications; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; training; transfer;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As the Tribunal pointed out in Judgment 1131, under 5, «[i]t may not supplant an organisation's view with its own on such matters as a restructuring of posts or redeployment of staff intended to make savings or improve efficiencies». Decisions on them are discretionary and the Tribunal's power of review in this respect is limited."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131
Keywords:
abolition of post; creation of post; discretion; judicial review; limits; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"It is [...] clear that a transfer of a non-disciplinary nature «is subject to the general principles governing all decisions affecting an official's status. It must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing him with work of the same level as that which he performed in his previous post and matching his qualifications» (see Judgment 2229, under 3(a))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229
Keywords:
decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; status of complainant; transfer; working conditions;
Judgment 2839
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"While a decision to reassign a staff member may be based on multiple factors, it is evident [...] that «capacity strengthening» was not the real reason for the reassignment. [M]isinforming the complainant of the reason for the reassignment reflects a disregard for her dignity."
Keywords:
assignment; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"[I]t cannot be said that the Organization engaged in any meaningful consultation with the complainant regarding her reassignment. Providing her with Terms of Reference for a post that she did not know was intended for her, arranging for a meeting with her proposed new Director without being informed of her planned transfer, and a meeting with the Regional Director when the decision had already been taken does not constitute proper consultation."
Keywords:
assignment; consultation; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; terms of appointment;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"It is clear that in accordance with Staff Regulation 1.1 staff members are subject to the authority of the Director-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Organization. Further, under Staff Rule 565.2 a staff member may be reassigned at any time in the interest of the Organization. However, in the exercise of the discretion to reassign a staff member, the Organization must take into account the interests and dignity of the staff member, including the provision of work of the same level as that which was performed in the former post and matching the staff member's qualifications, and care must be taken not to cause undue injury to the staff member (see Judgments 2067, under 17, 2191, under 3, and 2229, under 3). Moreover, the staff member is entitled to be informed of the reasons for the reassignment. In addition to ensuring transparency in decision making, providing the reasons for the reassignment permits a staff member to assess the courses of action that may be taken, including the lodging of an appeal, and it also permits a review of the lawfulness of the decision on appeal (see Judgment 1757, under 5)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1757, 2067, 2191, 2229
Keywords:
assignment; discretion; duty to inform; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; organisation's duties; reassignment; respect for dignity; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In March 2006 the complainant, who had been assigned to Zimbabwe since 1996, applied for a transfer, in the same grade, to ILO headquarters in Geneva to occupy the advertised post of Senior Procurement Officer. His candidature was rejected because he failed to meet three of the core requirements listed in the vacancy notice. Circular No. 658, series 6, states that the Office should ensure, in particular, that 'priority for mobility is given to staff members who have completed their tours of duty', i.e. their assignment in a particular duty station.
"It is not disputed that the complainant can avail himself of the mobility rules to return, as and when appropriate, to the Organization's headquarters. But that does not, of course, mean that he has a right to return to headquarters to take up a particular post without it being determined beforehand that the post to which he aspires corresponds to his skills."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 658, series 6
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competition; condition; criteria; duty station; field; grade; grounds; headquarters; organisation's duties; period; post; priority; qualifications; reassignment; refusal; request for transfer; right; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2830
107th Session, 2009
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's appointment was terminated following a reorganisation.
"The Tribunal finds that the Organization has not shown that it actually did its utmost to find a post matching the complainant's qualifications. Furthermore, before simply terminating his appointment, the Organization ought to have ascertained whether he was prepared to accept a post at a lower grade to that which he had previously held (see Judgment 1782, under 11). It was not up to the complainant to prove that he was able to remain in the Organization's service in some capacity; it was up to the Organization to prove the contrary."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1782
Keywords:
burden of proof; condition; grade; lack of evidence; organisation's duties; post; qualifications; reassignment; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 2817
107th Session, 2009
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision to remove him from his functions following the reorganisation of the department in which he was employed.
"[There] are a number of matters pointing to the conclusion that the [impugned] decision was taken in bad faith. First, there is the fact that [...] there was no restructuring relevant to the complainant's post, although there was then a proposal to that effect. Further, no discussions were then held with the complainant with respect to the restructuring of [his] Department; he was not informed in a timely manner that the restructuring proposal had been replaced with another proposal [...] - a fact that was not disclosed to the Headquarters Board of Appeal by the Organization. No answer was given to his letter of 1 March 2006 and none to a subsequent letter of 28 August 2006 [...]."
Keywords:
good faith; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2742
105th Session, 2008
World Meteorological Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 41
Extract:
The complainant contests the decision to reassign her to the post of Chief of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) and asks to be reinstated in her former post. "Although the decision to reassign the complainant to the post of Chief of IAS was taken without authority, it does not follow that she should be reinstated in her former post. That post was lawfully abolished [...]. However, she is entitled to substantial damages notwithstanding that her reassignment was to a post at the same grade."
Keywords:
abolition of post; consequence; decision; grade; material damages; post; procedural flaw; reassignment; reinstatement; request by a party;
Judgment 2510
100th Session, 2006
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"An international organisation necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269 and 1614). As was pointed out in Judgment 1131, the Tribunal may not supplant an organisation's view with respect to these matters, and decisions on them are discretionary and subject to limited review."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1131, 1614
Keywords:
abolition of post; creation of post; decision; discretion; judicial review; limits; post; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 2471
99th Session, 2005
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
Following a reorganisation the post the complainant held in the Department of General Services (AGS) was transferred to another department. In December 2002 she was reassigned to AGS, though in a different position. She asks to be given back the duties and responsibilites she had in AGS prior to the reorganisation. "The Tribunal considers that this request cannot be granted, for it would imply undoing the reorganisation and reversing the technological changes that have been made, which, as the complainant herself acknowledges in her submissions, were both necessary and predictable. Her position is thus untenable."
Keywords:
claim; difference; liability; post; post held by the complainant; reassignment; refusal; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 2294
96th Session, 2004
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
Case of an official who served the Organization for 16 years and always gave satisfaction, whose post was abolished. The Organization states "that although the complainant was entitled to apply for posts which fell vacant after his appointment had been terminated, he did not do so. [T]he Tribunal considers that it was up to [the Organization] to make proposals to the complainant and to give some preference to his application."
Keywords:
abolition of post; appointment; candidate; official; organisation's duties; post; post held by the complainant; priority; reassignment; right; seniority; separation from service; vacancy;
Judgment 2226
95th Session, 2003
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 21
Extract:
The complainant was reassigned from one day to the next. "Considering the complainant's length of service (12 years with the organization), the absence of any report of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance on his part, or any indication of urgency that might have justified a sudden, unheralded management decision to reassign him, the action of the Director-General was flawed by procedural irregularity."
Keywords:
decision; executive body; executive head; flaw; lack of evidence; misconduct; notice; organisation; period; procedural flaw; reassignment; report; satisfactory service; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 2207
94th Session, 2003
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The affair the complainant had with a national of the country of the duty station led to a series of incidents. "In view of the particular circumstances of the case, it is perfectly legitimate to conclude that it was in the organization's interest to terminate the complainant's assignment in Nairobi in order to maintain an untroubled working atmosphere in the service and to preserve its good relations with the host country. However, in accordance with the Tribunal's case law (see, in particular, Judgments 269 and 1231), the defendant could not terminate the complainant's appointment solely on that basis, without having taken appropriate steps to find him a new assignment."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1231
Keywords:
case law; conduct; duty station; member state; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; organisation's reputation; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer; working relations;
Judgment 2054
91st Session, 2001
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal is unable to agree with the complainant that as a disabled former staff member he is entitled to a right to reassignment. There is no basis in the Staff Regulations for conferring on him a preferential status. As with any job applicant, he has to follow the procedures and apply for any desired vacant post. To rule otherwise would, in effect, introduce an amendment to the applicable rules to unduly favour disabled former staff members. As the Tribunal has held in Judgment 637 [...] the staff (much less former employees) 'may not demand amendment of the rules governing their employment'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; candidate; competition; handicapped person; priority; reassignment; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 2027
90th Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Eurocontrol contends that the complaint is irreceivable because the "decision" to transfer him was not a real decision coming from an appointing authority, thus, he fails to show injury and has no cause of action. The objections to receivability fail. Even a simple measure on a matter of internal reorganisation such as transfer may sometimes impair the staff member's rights and legitimate interests (see Judgment 1078 [...] among others)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1078
Keywords:
burden of proof; cause of action; decision; executive head; grounds; injury; lack of injury; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; right; staff member's interest; transfer;
Judgment 2025
90th Session, 2001
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complaint was transferred to the field against his liking. At the end of the internal procedure, the organisation decided to reassign him to Headquarters. "It thereby admitted [...] that it had failed to assess the complainant's circumstances with the care required by administrative decisions that affect its staff. That in itself warrants the conclusion that, even though his assignment [to Headquarters] met the complainant's wishes in part, it did not fully make up for the injury caused by his transfer [to the field]. Consequently [...] the Director-General was wrong not to award him the compensation he had claimed."
Keywords:
compensation; executive head; field; headquarters; injury; internal appeal; organisation's duties; reassignment; refusal; request by a party; transfer;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
