Redeployment (649,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Redeployment
Total judgments found: 6

• Judgment 4369

  
  131st Session, 2021
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed; redeployment; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4176

  
  128th Session, 2019
  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 following the abolition of his post and the unsuccessful redeployment process.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; health reasons; redeployment; termination of employment; termination of employment for health reasons;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4007

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainants challenge their redeployment following a restructuring.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In Judgment 3740, under 11, the Tribunal reiterated that “for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury”. It is evident that the redeployment of a staff member to a new post is liable to cause injury, and it follows that the complainants have a cause of action and the complaints are receivable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3740
  

  Keywords:

  cause of action; redeployment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint allowed; decision quashed; redeployment;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  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 1553

  
  81st Session, 1996
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  Many judgments - for example 1131 [...] - have declared that the Tribunal will not review an organisation's policy but only an individual decision taken to give effect thereto and the actual application of substantive rules. Its power of review is limited. It may not supplant an organisation's view with its own on such matters as policies of restructuring or redeployment of staff intended to make savings or improve efficiency. It will interfere only when a decision was taken without authority or in breach of a formal or procedural rule, or was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or neglected some essential fact, or constituted an abuse of authority, or drew mistaken conclusions from the factual evidence.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131
  

  Keywords:

  discretion; redeployment; reorganisation;