Reorganisation (383,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reorganisation
Total judgments found: 85
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4009
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend his fixed-term contract following the abolition of his post, but to give him a Project Staff contract.
Considerations 4-5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Since a breach of rules concerning consultation of a staff representative body constitutes a procedural flaw, this plea lies within the scope of review defined above.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Consideration 5
Extract:
A firm line of precedent has it that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services which leads to the abolition of a post is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence (see Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3582
Keywords:
consultation; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4004
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his appeal against the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment, which was filed after he had accepted a mutually agreed separation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Judgment 3992
126th Session, 2018
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a Note sent to all staff concerning a staffing plan.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he staffing plan is not an administrative decision subject to challenge. The staffing plan is just that – a plan developed by the Director-General setting out a proposed structure for the Technical Secretariat that also identifies and proposes the organisational and staffing changes needed to bring about the new structure for the Technical Secretariat. [...] [I]t is also observed that the text of the staffing plan does not include any decision. Moreover, the [...] decision of the Conference of the States Parties tasking the Director-General with the development of a staffing plan for the Technical Secretariat required that the implementation of any of the staffing plan proposals must be submitted to the OPCW’s policy-making organs for consideration.
Keywords:
administrative decision; reorganisation;
Judgment 3940
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish his post.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law concerning the abolition of a post in the context of a restructuring process was succinctly stated in Judgment 2830, under 6: “(a) An international organisation may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Reorganisation measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff (see Judgments 269, 1614, 2510 and 2742). The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter for the Organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 1131, under 5, and 2510, under 10).
(b) The Tribunal has consistently held that ‘there must be objective grounds’ for the abolition of any post. It must not serve as a pretext for removing staff regarded as unwanted, since this would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 1231, under 26, and the case law cited therein)’.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2830
Keywords:
abolition of post; reorganisation;
Judgment 3932
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.
Considerations 21 & 26
Extract:
The determinative issue in this case is whether the evaluation of the complainant’s performance was procedurally flawed. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that “an organisation has a wide discretion in deciding whether to renew a fixed-term appointment and its right to refuse to renew can be based on unsatisfactory performance”. As well, “such a discretionary decision can be successfully impugned if it is fatally flawed by, for example, procedural defects, a failure to take account of some essential fact, abuse or misuse of authority, or if it was based on an error of fact or of law” (see Judgment 3743, consideration 2, and the cases cited therein). The Tribunal has also consistently held that “an organisation cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance” (see Judgment 3252, consideration 8, and the case cited therein).
[...]
It was only in the memorandum of 9 July 2012 that the complainant was informed of the extensive deficiencies in her performance both in terms of her duties and conduct. This letter cannot be viewed as a proper or fair evaluation for a number of reasons. First, it was not in compliance with the mandatory PEMS. Second, other than the deficiencies identified in the audit attributed to the complainant, the letter does not give any detail with respect to when and what the observations were and which interactions with other colleagues at headquarters and in the SAP gave rise to concerns. [...] Third, the unilateral determination that the eleven deficiencies identified in the audit were solely attributable to the complainant and that the renewal of her fixed-term contract was, therefore, in jeopardy, without providing the complainant with an opportunity to respond, was a clear breach of the complainant’s due process rights. This was further exacerbated by her supervisor’s and the Director, OSD’s failure to reply to or take into account the complainant’s extensive response to the alleged deficiencies attributed to her in the audit report.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3252, 3743
Keywords:
abuse of power; misuse of authority; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; unsatisfactory service; work appraisal;
Judgment 3929
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and to terminate her appointment while she was on sick leave.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). 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 Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;
Judgment 3928
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish his post and to terminate his appointment while he was on sick leave.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that “[a]ccording to firm precedent, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, which leads to the abolition of a post, may be taken at the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. The latter must therefore confine itself to ascertaining whether the decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves a mistake of fact or of law, whether it constituted abuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts, or whether it draws clearly mistaken conclusions from the evidence. The Tribunal may not, however, supplant an organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, under 5, 2510, under 10, and 2933, under 10). 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 Judgments 1231, under 26, 1729, under 11, and 3353, under 17)” (Judgment 3582, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 1231, 1729, 2510, 2933, 3353, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; abuse of power; discretion; limits; misuse of authority; reorganisation;
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 6
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that when an organization has to abolish a position occupied by a staff member holding a continuous appointment, it has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person, as a matter of priority, to another post matching her or his abilities and grade. The staff member in question may therefore claim to be appointed to any vacant post which she or he is capable of filling in a competent manner, regardless of the qualifications of the other candidates (see Judgment 133). If the attempt to find such a post proves fruitless, it is up to the organisation, if the staff member concerned agrees, to try to place her or him in duties at a lower grade and to widen its search accordingly (see Judgments 1782, under 11, 2830, under 9, and 3755, under 6).
The written submissions show that the complainant’s qualifications and professional experience made him eligible for assignment to three vacant posts. The fact that numerous posts at AFRO were abolished is not in itself a valid reason for not reassigning the complainant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 133, 1782, 2830, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; reorganisation;
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 3900
125th Session, 2018
Centre for the Development of Enterprise
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her contract owing to the closure of the CDE and the terms and conditions of that termination.
Consideration 4
Extract:
As the Tribunal has consistently held, “[w]hen an organisation has to abolish a position occupied by a staff member holding a continuous appointment, it [...] has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person as a matter of priority to another post matching his or her abilities and grade.” (See Judgment 3755, under 6.) This possibility must be explored before a decision is taken to abolish a post (see Judgments 2294, under 9, 3169, under 10 and 13, and 3238, under 13) and it is up to the organisation to prove that it has made every possible effort to reassign the staff member (see Judgments 2830, under 9, 3169, under 14, 3238, under 14, and 3755, under 19).
[...] As the institution was on the point of ceasing to exist, there could be no question of reassigning the complainant to another post within it. The Centre cannot therefore be criticised for not exploring that avenue.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2294, 2830, 3169, 3238, 3755
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; permanent appointment; reorganisation;
Consideration 8
Extract:
By refusing to contemplate the slightest possibility of CDE staff members being employed in the new structure, and by even going so far as to oppose that option at a time when the nature of the new structure was still undefined, the Director-Curator breached the duty of care which an international organisation owes to its staff.
Keywords:
duty of care; reorganisation;
Judgment 3824
124th Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant has filed an application for execution of Judgment 3421.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has a limited power of review over the structural arrangements adopted by an international organisation with a view to ensuring the smooth operation of its departments, which may involve creating or abolishing posts and, more generally, redeploying staff (see, inter alia, Judgments 269, under 2, 1131, under 5, 1614, under 3, 2090, under 6, and 2510, under 10)[.]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1131, 1614, 2090, 2510
Keywords:
judicial review; reorganisation;
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 6
Extract:
While it is true that international organisations have the right to restructure their operations, abolish posts if necessary and consequently terminate the appointment of their staff members who are affected by the planned restructuring (see Judgment 1854, under 10), they cannot simply terminate their appointment – at least not if they hold an appointment of indeterminate duration – without first taking suitable steps to find them alternative employment (see, for example, Judgments 269, under 2, 1745, under 7, 2207, under 9, and 3238, under 10).
When an organisation has to abolish a position occupied by a staff member holding a continuous appointment, it therefore has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person, as a matter of priority, to another post matching his or her abilities and grade. The staff member in question may therefore claim to be appointed to any vacant post which she or he is capable of filling in a competent manner, regardless of the qualifications of the other candidates (see Judgment 133). If the attempt to find such a post proves fruitless, it is up to the organisation, if the staff member concerned agrees, to try to place her or him in duties at a lower grade and to widen its search accordingly (see Judgments 1782, under 11, and 2830, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 133, 269, 1745, 1782, 1854, 2207, 2830, 3238
Keywords:
abolition of post; duty of care; reorganisation;
Judgment 3667
122nd Session, 2016
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he was not promoted during the 2013 promotion exercise.
Considerations 5-6
Extract:
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations establishes the exclusion principle which is challenged by the complainant, who has reached the highest grade in the bracket to which his current post belongs. This principle is consistent with the aims of the administrative reform carried out in 2008, namely to end the practice of automatic promotion while not ruling out the possibility of making exceptions in order to enable particularly well-qualified officials to move up to a higher grade in the next bracket.
In the structure introduced by the administrative reform which entered into force at Eurocontrol on 1 July 2008, officials are classed in hierarchical grade brackets, each of which corresponds to a clearly defined category of functions. In the same way that an official who has reached the pinnacle of her or his career can no longer hope for promotion, a Eurocontrol official who has reached the top of her or his grade bracket does not, in principle, have any possibility of moving into a higher grade.
Keywords:
post classification; reclassification; reorganisation;
Judgment 3507
120th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests the payment of various sums in consequence of the decision to grant her a permanent disability benefit.
Consideration 13
Extract:
"It is by no means unusual that the executive head of an international organisation should decide, upon being appointed, to modify the structure and membership of her or his office and secretariat to suit her or his requirements. However, any such modification must respect the rights and dignity of the officials hitherto assigned to these units."
Keywords:
reorganisation;
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;
Judgment 3437
119th Session, 2015
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to terminate his contract following the CTA restructuring.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Precedent has it that international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions in order to achieve greater efficiency or budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgments 2156, under 8, or 2510, under 10). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the applicable legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgments 1614, under 3, 2907, under 13, or 3169, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1614, 2156, 2510, 2907, 3169
Keywords:
organisation's duties; reorganisation;
Judgment 3436
119th Session, 2015
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Following the abolition of her post in the context of the CTA restructuring, the complainant successfully impugns the decision to terminate her appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; reorganisation; termination of employment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Precedent has it that international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions in order to achieve greater efficiency or budgetary savings (see, for example, Judgments 2156, under 8, or 2510, under 10). However, each and every individual decision adopted in the context of such restructuring must respect all the applicable legal rules and in particular the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgments 1614, under 3, 2907, under 13, or 3169, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1614, 2156, 2510, 2907, 3169
Keywords:
reorganisation;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has consistently upheld the principle that an international organisation may not terminate the appointment of a staff member whose post has been abolished, at least if he or she holds an appointment of indeterminate duration, without first taking suitable steps to find him or her alternative employment (see, for example, Judgments 269, under 2, 1745, under 7, 2207, under 9, or 3238, under 10). As a result, when an organisation has to abolish a post held by a staff member who, like the complainant in the instant case, holds a contract for an indefinite period of time, it has a duty to do all that it can to reassign that person as a matter of priority to another post matching his or her abilities and grade. Furthermore, if the attempt to find such a post proves fruitless, it is up to the organisation, if the staff member concerned agrees, to try to place him or her in duties at a lower grade and to widen its search accordingly (see Judgments 1782, under 11, or 2830, under 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 269, 1745, 2207, 3238
Keywords:
permanent appointment; redeployment; reorganisation; separation from service;
Judgment 3373
118th Session, 2014
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal stated that the Organisation, after having outsourced a part of the complainant's duties, breached its duty of care because it failed to ensure that the implementation of the arrangement did not place the complainant in financial difficulties.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"According to the consistent case law of the Tribunal, an international organisation “necessarily has power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including by the abolition of posts […] and the redeployment of staff” (see Judgment 2510, under 10). The concept of redeployment must be understood as including not only the assignment of staff to different posts, but also requiring them to accept a new or different method of organising continuous service. It follows that a particular model of organising a service, such as the one previously in force in this case, cannot constitute an acquired right."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2510
Keywords:
acquired right; redeployment; reorganisation;
Judgment 3353
118th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the non-renewal of their contracts following a restructuring process and obtain moral damages for the serious affront to their dignity and the failure to give reasonable notice.
Consideration 30
Extract:
"The Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 2861, under 27, that it must be taken to be normal practice in any international organisation to involve the Chief of a Section or Department in plans for its reorganisation. This is because not to do so would ordinarily constitute a serious failure to respect the dignity of that person."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2861
Keywords:
reorganisation; respect for dignity;
Consideration 22
Extract:
"The evidence shows that the functions for which new staff members were recruited required qualifications, expertise and experience that the complainants did not have. Accordingly, the restructuring involving a decision to abolish the complainants’ posts, was within the discretion of the ITU."
Keywords:
reorganisation; staff reduction;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
