|
|
 |
|
|
Reorganisation (383,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reorganisation
Total judgments found: 85
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4799
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests, firstly, the decision to reassign him pursuant to the closure of his area of competence in Berlin, and to reallocate some patent files, secondly, the decision to reallocate some patent files in the context of his reassignment and, thirdly, the closure of an area of competence per se.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power, and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). 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. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5, and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4798
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the closure of an area of competence in the Berlin sub-office, and her reassignment.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant further contends that the closure of the area of competence G01R in Berlin did not increase efficiency as indicated by the EPO. However, the complainant does not establish procedural or substantive errors of this decision, which is organizational in nature, and thus involved the exercise of a wide discretionary power. The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide which of the many possible restructuring options should be chosen by the Organisation.
Keywords:
discretion; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls its well-established case law that decisions regarding restructuring, reassignment of staff members to different posts, and changes in the duties assigned to staff members, involve the exercise of a wide discretionary power and are therefore subject to limited judicial review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4084, consideration 13, 3488, consideration 3, and 2562, consideration 12). 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. However, the organisation must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the officials concerned, particularly by providing them with work of the same level as that which they performed in their previous post and matching their qualifications (see Judgments 4240, consideration 5 and 3488, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2562, 3488, 4084, 4240
Keywords:
discretion; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 4768
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 4767
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on 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 individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; complaint dismissed; reorganisation;
Judgment 4766
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant requests a compensatory allowance to offset financial losses resulting from a restructuring.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
compensatory allowance; complaint dismissed; reorganisation;
Consideration 2
Extract:
First of all, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law that decisions concerning the restructuring of an international organisation, including to abolish posts, may be taken at the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall confine itself to ascertaining whether such decisions are taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rest on 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 individual decisions relating to it, and it shall not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4503, consideration 11, and 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4405, 4503, 4608
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
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 4588
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
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 4503
134th Session, 2022
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term appointment upon its expiry.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he restructuring of the [Senior Management Team] and the consequent non-renewal of the complainant’s appointment was a discretionary decision, as part of a policy to reform and restructure the management of the Organization, lawfully taken by the Director-General, within her authority. It is well settled in the Tribunal’s case law that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will 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 will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4139, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, 4405, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4139, 4180, 4405
Keywords:
discretion; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation; role of the tribunal; senior official;
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 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;
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 2
Extract:
The Tribunal draws attention to its settled case law under which 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 will 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 constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring or of decisions relating to it and it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4004, 4180
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4402
132nd Session, 2021
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his position.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Access to the Tribunal is generally conditioned by Article VII of its Statute, which requires that a complainant exhaust internal means of redress. It is also conditioned by the need for a complainant to raise a case of non-observance of the terms of appointment or non-observance of applicable Staff Regulations (see Article II of the Statute). The complainant does not point to any provision in IFAD’s Staff Rules or any other normative legal document applicable at the time he made his request on 27 July 2017 expressly conferring on an individual staff member a right to make such a request directly to the Director HRD and thereby seek to have her or his position reclassified or expressly creating any corresponding duty on the organisation to consider and determine such a request.
The complainant seeks to avoid the consequences of there being no express right as just discussed by arguing that the reorganisation of LEG in June 2015 required the Director HRD to ensure all positions were correctly classified and, if they had not been, as argued by the complainant in his brief, the Director HRD “had an ongoing obligation to do so whenever the matter was brought to his attention”. Even accepting, for present purposes, that there had been an obligation during the reorganisation to ensure positions were correctly classified, it is a large step to say that the obligation was an ongoing one, enlivened at any time by an individual who had been involved in the reorganisation requesting reclassification by correspondence directly with the Director HRD. As the Director HRD rightly pointed out in his email of 20 October 2017, any failure to address correctly the complainant’s classification during the reorganisation in 2015 should have been challenged at the time, as should have decisions made in 2012-2013 which may have borne upon his classification.
The complainant refers to Judgment 3861 in support of a proposition that an organisation must ensure staff are properly compensated and accordingly must make sure positions are properly graded. But that judgment was far more narrowly focused. The Tribunal said “the principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand that international organisations treat their staff with due consideration in order to avoid causing them undue injury; an employer must consequently inform officials in advance of any action that may imperil their rights or harm their rightful interests (see Judgment 2768, under 4)”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2768, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal; post classification; reorganisation; time bar;
Judgment 4397
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to transfer her.
Considerations 10-12
Extract:
The claim that the [transfer] decision […] lacked legal basis is well founded. The Organisation relied on its general power to restructure its services to justify the complainant’s “reassignment” […]. The Organisation notes that the Tribunal’s case law forms part of its legal framework. However, the Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that “any authority is bound by the rules it has itself issued until it amends, suspends or repeals them. The general principle is that rules govern only what is to happen henceforth, and it is binding on any authority since it affords the basis for relations between the parties in law. Furthermore, a rule is enforceable only from the date on which it is brought to the notice of those to whom it applies (see Judgment 963, under 5). A competent body adopts rules in order to regulate its exercise of discretionary power in making specific decisions. It would radically contrast with the finality and essence of a rule (which is by nature general and abstract) to allow that in making a decision the authority can disregard a rule that was adopted in order to limit the authorities’ power concerning particular subjects and instead create an opportunity for expanding one’s power. Obviously, the procedure to adopt rules must be different from the procedure to make decisions, because rules are general and apply to many (undefined) and therefore must be published accordingly, whereas decisions are more precise and apply to few (defined)” (see Judgment 2575, consideration 6).
In stating that “the legal basis for restructuring decisions [is] not to be found exclusively in the [Service Regulations]”, the Appeals Committee misinterpreted the Tribunal’s case law. While it is true that, in taking restructuring decisions, the executive head can also rely on some well-established principles enshrined in the case law (see, for example, Judgments 4086, consideration 11, 3488, consideration 3, and 2839, consideration 11), she or he is bound by the proper application of the relevant provisions in force. In the present case, the Organisation erred in not following the provisions in force at the time the […] decision was taken, when it created a new post without advertising the vacancy. […]
The Organisation’s assertion that the impugned decision was lawful as it was based on its general power to restructure its services, in its generality, is not acceptable. The Organisation’s wide discretion still requires it to be exercised within the limits of the general principles of law and the existing provisions; otherwise, it becomes a way to circumvent the provisions in force, leading to arbitrariness. At the time the [transfer] decision was taken, there was no provision in the Service Regulations which allowed the EPO to reassign an employee, together with her or his post, to duties corresponding to her or his grade, or which allowed the EPO to create and fill a new post without following the provisions regarding transfers and creation of posts. […]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 963, 2575, 2839, 3488
Keywords:
applicable law; patere legem; reorganisation; transfer;
Judgment 4395
131st Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the amount of compensation awarded to him for the cessation of his shift work activities following a reorganisation.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the compensation which the complainant received is consistent with the requirements which the Tribunal provided in Judgment 3373, consideration 11, for calculating ex aequo et bono the amount of his entitlement for the cessation of his shift work and that the EPO thereby adequately compensated him therefor. It had also thereby met the duty of care owed to the complainant for the adverse financial impact caused by its decision to end shift work.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373
Keywords:
compensation; reorganisation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Appeals Committee had referred to the principle stated by the Tribunal in Judgment 3373, considerations 8 and 9, that while an international organization necessarily has the power to restructure its departments, including by the redeployment of staff, when the new work arrangements have a direct financial impact on the affected official, an organization has to ensure, in accordance with the duty of care owed to its staff, that the implementation of the arrangements does not place the affected official in financial difficulty. If it does, an indemnity ex aequo et bono will enable the affected official to adjust to his changed financial circumstances (Judgment 3373, consideration 11). The Appeals Committee correctly stated that the EPO’s obligation to compensate the complainant arose with the cessation of his shift work as of 1 January 2014.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3373
Keywords:
reorganisation;
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.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Consistent principle has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organisation, including the abolition of posts, as well as decisions concerning the selection of a successful applicant in a competition, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and are consequently subject to only limited review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will 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 constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring and decisions relating to it as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 2933, under 10, and 3372, under 12, respectively).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2933, 3372
Keywords:
reorganisation;
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;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organization and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, 3582, consideration 6, or 4099, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099
Keywords:
discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4099
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to abolish her position.
Consideration 3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organization’s services, including one concerned with the abolition of a position, lies at the discretion of the organization’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review. The Tribunal must verify whether this decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form or procedure, whether it involves an error of fact or of law, whether it constituted misuse of authority, whether it failed to take account of material facts or whether it draws clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence. However, it cannot supplant the organization’s appraisal with its own (see, for example, Judgments 1131, consideration 5, 2510, consideration 10, 2933, consideration 10, and 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582
Keywords:
abolition of post; discretion; judicial review; reorganisation;
Judgment 4086
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to maintain her contested job description.
Consideration 17
Extract:
[A]lthough WIPO was probably primarily concerned with the results of the restructuring exercise and had no desire to “downgrade” the complainant’s post in the strict sense, it did not act in accordance with its duty of care towards the complainant.
Keywords:
duty of care; post description; reorganisation;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
