Judgment No. 4935
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
project personnel; right of appeal; abolition of post; reassignment; reorganisation; termination of employment; duty of care; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
Firm precedent has it 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 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states 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 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 law, or whether they constituted abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organisation’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4004, consideration 2). 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 3582, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3238, 3582, 4004
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; abolition of post; reorganisation; judicial review; discretion; executive head; limits; duty of care
Consideration 4
Extract:
[A] decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member 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. The Tribunal has further stated that the need to give reasons in support of adverse administrative decisions arises precisely because the affected staff member must be given an opportunity of knowing and evaluating whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see, for example, Judgment 3041, considerations 8 and 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; right of appeal; abolition of post; reorganisation; notice; duty of care; notification
Consideration 10
Extract:
The central question […] is whether IOM gave the complainant the required notification of the abolition of his post and the termination of his appointment. [T]he Tribunal does not impose on international organizations a duty to provide staff members whose positions are abolished with the full set of internal documents used as a basis for such decision. Rather, the Tribunal requires an organization to give such staff members notice within the required time and sufficient reasons for the decision to abolish their post and for any subsequent decision, including the termination of their appointment. This is the expressed purport of Regulation 9.4. It also accords with the well-settled case law that an international organisation necessarily has power to restructure, and, in so doing, may abolish posts. As well, it accords with the case law stated, for example, in consideration 7 of Judgment 3234, that a decision to abolish a post must be communicated to the staff member occupying the post in a manner that safeguards that individual’s rights and that these rights are safeguarded by giving proper notice of the decision.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3234
Keywords
duty to substantiate decision; right of appeal; abolition of post; reorganisation; termination of employment; notice; duty of care; notification
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant’s submission, in effect, that the P-4 position, which the Administration created, served the same overall functions as those attached to his P-3 position it replaced “though ostensibly with a few heightened responsibilities”, suggests, in line with IOM’s submission, that his abolished position and the created position were different in terms of the overall scope and expertise required. The complainant’s further suggestion that he could have occupied the created position, as he was qualified to do so, does not advance his case further. As IOM points out, he could have applied for the position but elected not to and he had no right to be directly promoted to it, as he suggests. It was within the discretion of the Director General to determine, as he did, that IOM’s interests required that new positions be filled through competition. The Tribunal finds no reason to depart from the JARB’s conclusion that it (the JARB) recognized that the decision to restructure RSC was based on operational needs, which required a position with a higher level of expertise at the higher P-4 grade, and that IOM had no obligation to promote the complainant to that position for which he had not applied.
Keywords
abolition of post; reassignment; reorganisation; duty of care; appointment without competition
Considerations 17-19
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that, contrary to the case law, the internal appeal process was flawed and the Administration violated its duty to provide him with an effective internal appeal remedy because the JARB failed to examine the substance of his arguments. […]
[He] argues that the JARB “explicitly refused” to rule on whether the Administration violated its duty to reassign him, with the result that the impugned decision which accepted the JARB’s report was incomplete and flawed. […]
[…] In the present case, the JARB considered the pleas the complainant proffered in his internal appeal and rejected his submission that the obligation to find a possible reassignment for him had not been met by IOM. Notwithstanding that the JARB’s analysis of the complainant’s pleas was brief and concise, it was sufficiently clear, understandable and adequate to permit the complainant to pursue his complaint before the Tribunal.
Keywords
right of appeal; reassignment; judicial review; duty of care; appointment without competition; report of the internal appeals body
Considerations 20-21
Extract:
The case law states that an organisation has a duty to explore possible options or to make reasonable efforts for the reassignment of a staff member whose post has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 2902, consideration 14, and 4097, consideration 9). In consideration 16 of Judgment 3908, the Tribunal stated that, while it has long recognized the right of an international organization to abolish positions, which will imperil the continuing employment of the occupants of those abolished positions, a concomitant of that right is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff who occupy those abolished positions. This obligation extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organisation for which those staff have the experience and qualifications.
Historically, the Tribunal generally considered the extent of an organization’s duty to reassign staff members whose positions were abolished mainly in relation to the type of contract they held, the nature of the post and/or the role to which they were assigned, their length of service with the organization, and recognized a greater duty in respect of staff who held permanent positions (see, for example, Judgment 3754, consideration 16). Nonetheless, in consideration 10 of Judgment 4097, the Tribunal stated that it does not follow that other classes of staff of differing status should be afforded no protection by principles it has developed in circumstances where their post is abolished and attempts are being made to reassign them.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3754, 3908, 4097
Keywords
contract; appointment; fixed-term; temporary-indefinite; abolition of post; reassignment; reorganisation; duty of care
Consideration 23
Extract:
The Tribunal is cognizant of the nature of the IOM’s funding structure as a project-based organization, which is significant, among other things, in that the employment of a large number of staff members is linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged. The Tribunal finds that in light of this, and IOM’s then discernible operational needs at that time, the Administration made reasonable efforts to reassign the complainant, thereby discharging its obligation and its duty towards him. Specifically, IOM invited the complainant to apply for vacant positions matching his qualifications and experience. IOM also considered other positions and reached out to eight other Missions and Regional Offices for the purpose of finding suitable reassignment options, but no available position matching the complainant’s qualifications and experience could be found. In the result, the complainant unsuccessfully applied for other positions. Against this background, the Tribunal cannot conclude that IOM violated its duty of care towards the complainant.
Keywords
project personnel; abolition of post; reassignment; reorganisation; duty of care
|
