Abolition of post (379, 380, 381, 382, 649, 383,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Abolition of post
Total judgments found: 182

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >

• Judgment 5147

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the abolition of his post and the termination of his fixed-term appointment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; termination of employment;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  “Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency, to make budgetary savings or if funding is no longer available, international organizations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules, and, in particular, the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, and 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of an organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether such decisions were taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, whether they rested 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 organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4844, consideration 3, 4004, consideration 2, and 3582, consideration 6). Nevertheless, any decision to abolish a post must be based on objective grounds, and its purpose should not be to remove a member of staff regarded as unwanted. Disguising such purposes as a restructuring measure would constitute abuse of authority (see Judgments 4353, consideration 6, and 3582, consideration 6). Moreover, 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, justification, 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 to know and evaluate whether or not the decision should be timely contested (see Judgments 4937, consideration 2, 4935, consideration 4, 4353, consideration 7, 3928, consideration 15, and 3041, considerations 8 and 9).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041, 3238, 3582, 3928, 4004, 4353, 4599, 4844, 4935, 4937
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion; organisation's duties; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5144

  
  141st Session, 2026
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  “Under the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to abolish a post and the consequent decision to terminate the appointment of the holder of that post, in the event that she or he is not reassigned, are legally separate (see, for example, Judgments 4369, consideration 5, and 3905, consideration 15). However, the Tribunal may examine the circumstances surrounding the abolition of post in a challenge to the subsequent termination of a staff member’s employment, even if no legal challenge was made, within time or at all, to the abolition of the post itself (see Judgments 3933, consideration 8, and 3172, consideration 16), for the limited purpose of, for example, ascertaining whether there has been an abuse of authority which entails consideration of whether the decision was taken for an improper purpose. Moreover, it is open to a complainant to impugn a redeployment process, if a failure to redeploy him has led to the termination of his employment (see, for example, Judgment 3933, consideration 8).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3172, 3905, 3933, 4369
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; abuse of power; administrative decision; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; termination of employment;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  “[A]n [o]rganization has the duty to explore options or to make reasonable efforts for the reassignment of a staff member whose post has been abolished (see, for example, Judgments 4097, consideration 9 […]). Unlike in cases where an organization actively reached out to other offices and documented efforts to secure reassignment, the record here shows only that the complainant was encouraged to apply for posts. But, in the circumstances of this case, […] the FAO was obliged to make more efforts […] In Judgment 3908, consideration 16, the Tribunal explained that […] a concomitant of [the right to abolish position] is an obligation to deal fairly with the staff […]This obligation extends to finding, if they exist, other positions within the organisation for which [they] have the experience and qualifications […] [T]he Tribunal generally considered the extent of an organization’s duty to reassign staff members whose positions were abolished mainly in relation to [their] type of contract […], the nature of [their post/role], their length of service […], and recognized a greater duty in respect of staff who held permanent positions (see, for example, Judgment 3754, consideration 16). There is no evidence that the complainant’s long service [or background] were considered against positions later filled by external candidates. […] [T]here is no evidence that [the fact that he worked in a hardship duty station] was taken into account in the reassignment exercises.”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 3908
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5132

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and not to renew her fixed-term contract.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract; reorganisation;
  

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  "[T]he Tribunal recalls that in Judgment 3908, consideration 16, it stated that:
  “[...] [T]he Tribunal has long recognised the right of an international organisation to restructure and abolish positions [...] 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.”
  In Judgment 4841, consideration 6, in a situation of non-renewal of a contract in connection with the abolition of a post at IOM, the Tribunal also held that “[...] the Organization ‘was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation’”.
  The Tribunal emphasized, however, that “[...] the Organization was not bound by any specific provision to identify an alternative post. Where the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified, the direct reassignment of the staff member to another adequate post, if it exists, is not mandatory.” The Tribunal also found that it was consistent with the duty of care of the Organization to place the complainant on special leave without pay after the expiry of her fixed-term contract “in order to enable her to apply to post vacancies within IOM as an internal candidate”.
  In the instant complaint, the record establishes, amongst other things, that the complainant was provided with a list of public vacancies […], that upon confirmation of her post abolition, […] alternative employment options [were explored] […], and that the Organization has assisted her in applying for no less than 32 vacancies since 2018. […]. In addition, it is not disputed that the complainant was placed on special leave without pay after her separation to allow her to continue to apply to vacancies as an internal candidate.
  While none of these opportunities materialized for the complainant, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that she was unsuccessful in applying for a range of positions for the Tribunal to conclude that IOM violated its duty towards her in this regard […].”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3908, 4841
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5130

  
  141st Session, 2026
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract further to the abolition of his position due to budgetary constraints.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; budgetary reasons; complaint dismissed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  It is well-established case law 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 4097, consideration 9, and 2902, consideration 14). 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 organization for which those staff have the experience and qualifications.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3908, 4097
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [I]t was stated in Judgment 4935, consideration 21:
  “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.”
  The Tribunal is cognizant of the nature of the IOM’s funding structure as a project-based organization. This 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 (see Judgment 4935, consideration 23).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3754, 4097, 4935
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; duty of care; financial considerations; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; project personnel; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5020

  
  140th Session, 2025
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de résilier son engagement par suite de la suppression de son poste.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  S’agissant de l’exception d’illégalité qu’invoque la requérante, le Tribunal précise que, dans le jugement 5019, prononcé ce jour sur la quatrième requête de celle-ci, il a annulé l[es[ décision[s] du Secrétaire général […] en tant qu’elles portaient sur la suppression du poste de l’intéressée.
  Or, ainsi que le Tribunal l’a rappelé dans son jugement 4845, au considérant 4, une telle annulation a pour effet de rendre également illégales, par voie de conséquence, la décision initiale […] portant résiliation de l’engagement de la requérante, de même que la décision portant rejet de la demande de réexamen qui l’a suivie et la décision attaquée du Secrétaire général […] portant sur le rejet du recours interne […] relatif à cette mesure de résiliation.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4845, 5019
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5019

  
  140th Session, 2025
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: La requérante conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [L]e Tribunal rappelle que, en vertu de sa jurisprudence constante, les décisions relatives à la restructuration des services d’une organisation internationale, telles que celles portant sur une suppression de poste, relèvent du pouvoir d’appréciation du chef exécutif de celle-ci et ne peuvent faire l’objet, en conséquence, que d’un contrôle restreint (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4844, au considérant 3, 4841, au considérant 4, et la jurisprudence citée).
  Ainsi que l’a précisé le Tribunal dans le jugement 4819, au considérant 6, dans de tels cas, son rôle est de vérifier «si ces décisions sont prises dans le respect des règles de compétence, de forme ou de procédure, si elles ne reposent pas sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, ou si elles ne sont pas entachées de détournement de pouvoir. Le Tribunal ne se prononcera donc pas sur le bien-fondé d’une restructuration ou des décisions y relatives, tout comme il ne substituera pas sa propre appréciation à celle de l’organisation [dans de telles situations] (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4608, au considérant 7, 4405, au considérant 2, 4180, au considérant 3, ou 4004, au considérant 2, et la jurisprudence citée)» (voir également, dans le même sens, les jugements 4937, au considérant 2, et 4935, au considérant 4).
  En revanche, le Tribunal a maintes fois relevé que toute suppression de poste doit être justifiée par des raisons objectives et ne saurait avoir pour but dissimulé d’éloigner du service un fonctionnaire considéré comme indésirable, ce qui constituerait alors un détournement de pouvoir (voir, à ce sujet, les jugements 4599, au considérant 11, 4353, au considérant 6, 2830, au considérant 6 b), et 1231, au considérant 26).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608, 4819, 4841, 4844, 4935, 4937
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  S’agissant […] de son droit d’être entendue avant que la décision de suppression de son poste ne soit prise, il ressort du dossier que, contrairement à ce que la défenderesse s’était du reste elle-même engagée à faire, l’intéressée n’a pas été consultée de quelque manière que ce soit avant [la prise de cette] décision […].
  Or, en vertu d’une jurisprudence bien établie du Tribunal, l’Organisation était tenue de consulter la requérante quant à la suppression envisagée de son poste afin de lui permettre de faire valoir son point de vue avant qu’une décision à cet effet ne soit prise (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4819, au considérant 7, 4622, au considérant 10, 3124, au considérant 3, 1817, au considérant 7, et 1484, au considérant 8).
  L’argumentation de la défenderesse selon laquelle le processus de réorganisation dans lequel s’inscrivait la suppression de poste était justifié et souhaitable est inopérante au regard du devoir d’Interpol de respecter ce droit de la requérante.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622, 4819
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; right to be heard;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  [D]ans le jugement 4935, au considérant 4, le Tribunal a rappelé que la décision de supprimer un poste doit être communiquée au fonctionnaire qui l’occupe d’une manière qui garantisse ses droits. Tel est le cas lorsque la décision est correctement notifiée, qu’elle est motivée et que son destinataire a la possibilité de la contester. Le Tribunal a en outre déclaré que, s’il est indispensable de fournir les motifs sur lesquels s’appuie une décision administrative faisant grief à un fonctionnaire, c’est précisément parce que l’intéressé doit se voir accorder la possibilité de savoir et de décider si celle-ci doit ou non être contestée dans les délais (voir également les jugements 4923, au considérant 10, et 3041, aux considérants 8 et 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041, 4923, 4935
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; motivation;
  

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  [D]ans la mesure où la décision de suppression de poste n’entraîne pas, par elle-même, la résiliation d’engagement, le Tribunal n’allouera pas de dommages-intérêts pour tort matériel au titre de l’annulation de cette décision (voir, à ce sujet, le jugement 4844, au considérant 8).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4844
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; material injury; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4937

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she encumbered and to terminate her contract.

  Considerations 2-3

  Extract:

  Firm precedent has it that in order to achieve greater efficiency, to make budgetary savings or if funding is no longer available, international organisations may undertake restructuring entailing the redefinition of posts and staff reductions. However, each and every individual decision adopted in such restructuring must respect all the pertinent legal rules, and, in particular, the fundamental rights of the staff concerned (see, for example, Judgments 4599, consideration 11, and 3238, consideration 7). The case law also states that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of an organization and are consequently subject to only limited review. 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 organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4844, consideration 3, 4004, consideration 2, and 3582, consideration 6). 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, Judgments 4353, consideration 6, and 3582, consideration 6). Moreover, 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, Judgments 4353, consideration 7, 3928, consideration 15, and 3041, considerations 8 and 9). It is worth recalling that, as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the administrative arrangements for the Support Unit, the Unit’s management and oversight was the responsibility of the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) Chair-in-Office, who decided how the Support Unit was run and advised the Organization accordingly of its role in accommodating and supporting the Unit. Moreover, the Head of the Support Unit, who was offered a contract of services by IOM under terms and conditions approved by the Chair-in-Office, was selected by the latter and was accountable to her or him. The Tribunal considers, in light of the terms of the MOU, that the decision to abolish the Support Unit was the prerogative of the GFMD.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3041, 3238, 3582, 3928, 4004, 4353, 4599, 4844
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion;
  

  Considerations 10-11

  Extract:

  The JARB stated, in its report, that having studied the financial calculations the complainant and the Administration presented, it established that there was a projected deficit in the funding for the Support Unit by the end of the UAE’s chairmanship of the GFMD; that by the end of January 2021, no financial commitment was in place which could have formed the basis of a new decision about the future of the Support Unit and its staff members and there was no legitimate reason for IOM itself to allocate funds to the Unit. The JARB also noted, among other things, that the MOU between IOM and the GFMD stated that “IOM will not be responsible for securing the necessary contributions to the [Support Unit]”. The JARB found, among other things, that IOM discontinued support services to the GFMD as of 1 February 2021, which supports IOM’s position that the financial factors it had advanced were the reasons for abolishing the Support Unit. It referred to the Administration’s response to its question that no services were provided by IOM to the GFMD between 1 February 2021 and 25 May 2021 and that, after protracted negotiations, a temporary arrangement was put in place from 1 July 2021 for IOM to provide minimal secretarial services to the GFMD, on a greatly reduced scale when compared to the functions previously provided by the Support Unit. It stated that it was satisfied with IOM’s explanation that the interim arrangements did not replace the Support Unit. The JARB concluded that it was satisfied that IOM had done the necessary due diligence to verify the status of the funding of the Support Unit and that, contrary to the complainant’s submission, financial reasons for the abolition of her position were genuine and legitimate and did not constitute an error of fact.
  The Tribunal determines that, on the record in these proceedings, this conclusion, accepted in the impugned decision, was open to the JARB. The complainant’s submissions to the contrary are therefore unfounded. In the main, her supporting arguments reflect her subjective view as to the availability of funds to continue to fund the Support Unit and her post. By extension, the complainant’s contention that IOM could have avoided the abolition of the Support Unit and her position, including by itself providing their funding from its own resources or otherwise is unfounded, particularly having regard to the administrative arrangements governing the complainant’s employment as mentioned in consideration 2. By extension as well, the complainant’s submissions that the subject decisions were taken in abuse of authority motivated by the Administration’s desire to remove her in the absence of a lawful reason to do so and the decisions were based on inaccurate facts, influenced by misleading information evidenced in the subsequent reestablishment of the same post are also unfounded. It is of no moment whether, even as the complainant states to support her plea of abuse of authority, IOM provided interim services, comparable to the services the Support Unit provided, from 2021 to 2022 and established a permanent GFMD Secretariat in 2023 in which it maintained a position “comparable [to] if not alike” her position after the termination of her appointment. The clear evidence is that the Support Unit, and, relatedly, her position, were abolished on objective grounds. As IOM points out, the interim services were not a new structure to which Support Unit staff members could have been transferred and the submission ignores the lapse in time between the abolition of Support Unit and her post in January 2021; the formal establishment of the GFMD Secretariat in February 2023 and the assumption of functions by the Head of that Secretariat in March 2023. Against this background, the complainant’s submission that the decisions were unnecessary is unmeritorious.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; financial considerations;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; financial considerations;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4935

  
  139th Session, 2025
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the decisions to abolish his position and terminate his appointment.

  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:

  abolition of post; discretion; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; reorganisation;
  

  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:

  abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal;
  

  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:

  abolition of post; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; notice; notification; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
  

  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; appointment without competition; duty of care; reassignment; reorganisation;
  

  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:

  abolition of post; appointment; contract; duty of care; fixed-term; reassignment; reorganisation; temporary-indefinite;
  

  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:

  abolition of post; duty of care; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; duty of care; project personnel; reassignment; reorganisation; right of appeal; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4917

  
  139th Session, 2025
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the non-extension of her fixed-term appointment.

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal observes that Staff Rule 103.10(d) cited by the complainant does not contain an obligation for the Organization to reassign staff members on fixed-term contracts whose positions have been abolished. The Tribunal held that where the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified, the direct reassignment of the staff member to another adequate post, if it exists, is not mandatory (see Judgment 4841, consideration 6). In any event, the complainant recognized that assistance in her search for other employment options was provided by UNIDO prior to her separation. The complainant’s fifth plea is therefore unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4841
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; non-renewal of contract; reassignment;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  It is pertinent to recall the Tribunal’s well-established case law concerning the non-renewal of fixed-term appointments. The case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4841, consideration 4, and 3940, consideration 3). Decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). The Tribunal does not rule on the appropriateness of a restructuring process, unless and until it negatively affects a staff member in breach of staff rules and regulations (see Judgment 4841, consideration 4).
  The Tribunal has also stated that it is often the case in a challenge to a decision to abolish a post that the aggrieved staff member, in this case the complainant, will develop arguments, often at length, as to how the restructuring might have been done differently and without the consequence of their post being abolished, but whether it could have been done differently is usually beside the point. It is sufficient for the organisation to point to legitimate reasons for the action actually taken (see Judgment 4036, consideration 15).
  Moreover, the case law also requires that the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 4503, consideration 7, 3769, consideration 7, 3626, consideration 12, 3586, consideration 10, and 3582, consideration 9). However, the case law does not require that reasons be stated in the text that give notice of the non-extension (see Judgments 3837, consideration 10, and 1750, consideration 6). The reasons may emerge at some later time and even during the course of the appeal proceedings so long as the staff member is fittingly permitted to reply (see Judgments 3837, consideration 10, and 1817, consideration 6). Further, it is sufficient if the reasons emerge orally in a meeting or discussion (see, for example, Judgment 3837, consideration 10).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1750, 1817, 3448, 3582, 3586, 3626, 3769, 3837, 3940, 4009, 4036, 4462, 4503, 4587, 4841
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion; judicial review; motivation; non-renewal of contract; role of the tribunal;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; non-renewal of contract;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4848

  
  138th Session, 2024
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decisions (i) to advertise his post; (ii) to organise a selection process to fill his post; (iii) not to appoint him to the post without competition; (iv) to renew his fixed-term appointment for three months only; (v) to restructure his division; and (vi) to modify/redefine his post.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; difference; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; organisation's duties; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; staff member's interest; title of post;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no manifest error in the Appeal Board’s finding and conclusion that there was a material difference between the duties and responsibilities of the newly created position (Director of CMD) and those of the original position (Director of CID) as a result of the redefined organizational context, warranting advertising for the post of Director of CMD. Therefore, the Director General’s decision to extend the complainant’s contract by three months only in the soon to be abolished position of Director of CID was taken in proper exercise of his discretion.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; manifest error; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
  

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  The other and related decisions apparent from the letter of 31 January 2018 were the decisions to offer the complainant a three-month extension of his fixed-term appointment and to advertise the position of Director of the (about to be created) CMD. In his pleas, the complainant challenges the creation of this position contending, amongst other things, it was not materially different to the position he then formally occupied and was the product of a reorganisation which was illusory rather than substantial. It is unnecessary to repeat the various ways this is put by the complainant. However, mention should be made of a submission, which is tantamount to an allegation that the reorganisation was not a bona fide exercise of an undoubtedly wide discretionary power the executive head of an international organisation has to institute administrative and other structural changes within the organisation with consequential effects on existing posts, including their redefinition or abolition (see, for example, Judgments 4599, considerations 11 and 12, 4353, consideration 7, 3238, consideration 7, and 3169, consideration 7). This is, in substance, an allegation of bad faith. However, bad faith may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see Judgments 4682, consideration 3, 4353, consideration 12, and 2800, consideration 21). In the present case, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the reorganisation decision did not involve a bona fide exercise of the wide discretionary power of the executive head. This plea is unfounded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2800, 3169, 3238, 4353, 4599, 4682
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; bad faith; burden of proof; difference; discretion; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; post description; renewal of contrat; reorganisation; title of post;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4845

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment following the suppression of his post.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In [...] Judgment 4844, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Director of Human Resources Management [...] suppressing the complainant’s post and the decision of the Secretary General [...] confirming that earlier decision at the end of the internal appeal procedure. As a consequence of that setting aside, the decision [...] terminating the complainant’s appointment on the grounds that it had not been possible to reassign him and the Secretary General’s decision [...], both taken on the basis of the decision to suppress his post, were also rendered unlawful.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4844
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4844

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Criminal Police Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suppress his post.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed; reorganisation;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The Tribunal has consistently held that a decision concerning the restructuring of an international organisation’s services, including one involving the abolition of a post, lies at the discretion of the executive head of the organisation 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 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 4139, consideration 2, 4099, consideration 3, 3582, consideration 6, 2933, consideration 10, 2510, consideration 10, and 1131, consideration 5).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1131, 2510, 2933, 3582, 4099, 4139
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation; role of the tribunal;
  

  Considerations 6 and 8

  Extract:

  Interpol maintains that the distinction between the decision to suppress the post and the subsequent decision to terminate the appointment following this suppression is artificial. [...] Those are two separate decisions, one of which does not necessarily lead to the other, and which, in principle, do not take place simultaneously.
  [...]
  To the extent that the decision to suppress the post did not, in itself, bring about the termination of appointment, the Tribunal will not award material damages for that setting aside.
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; termination of employment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4841

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law has often reiterated that a staff member appointed on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract, when it expires (see, for example, Judgments 4587, consideration 19, 4462, consideration 18, 3586, consideration 6, and 3448, consideration 7). As a result, the Tribunal’s scope of review is limited when an organization decides not to extend or renew a fixed-term appointment because the Tribunal respects an organization’s discretion to determine its own requirements and the career prospects of staff (see, for example, Judgment 3948, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). Thus, the Tribunal will not substitute its own assessment for that of the organization. The non-renewal of a fixed-term contract may be lawfully justified by the abolition of the post in the context of a restructuring process, provided that the abolition of the post be based on objective and valid grounds, as the abolition of a post must not serve as a pretext for removing unwanted staff, which would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgment 3940, consideration 3). A restructuring decision must be justified by real needs (see Judgment 4009, consideration 15). An international organization may find that it has to reorganise some or all of its departments or units. Restructuring measures may naturally entail the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts or the redeployment of staff. The steps to be taken in this respect are a matter of an organization’s discretion and are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see Judgments 4004, consideration 2, and 3940, consideration 3).
  In brief, decisions concerning the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, the abolition of a post, and/or a restructuring process, are discretionary decisions subject to limited review by the Tribunal. Non-renewal decisions may be set aside only if they were taken in breach of a rule of form or procedure; if they rest upon an error of fact or of law; if some essential fact was overlooked; if there was an abuse or misuse of authority; or if clearly mistaken conclusions were drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3299, consideration 6). In turn, restructuring decisions, including the abolition of posts, may be set aside only if they are not taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure, if they rest upon a mistake of fact or law, or if they constituted an abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the restructuring, as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4004, consideration 2, 2933, consideration 10, and 2742, consideration 34).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2742, 2933, 3448, 3586, 3940, 3948, 4004, 4009, 4462, 4587
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; judicial review; non-renewal of contract;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  Judgment 3908 stated that:
  “[...] [T]he Tribunal has long recognised the right of an international organisation to restructure and abolish positions [...] 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.”
  This principle has been expressed in a different factual situation, namely in cases of anticipated termination of an appointment due to the abolition of a post (see also, in addition to Judgment 3908, Judgments 4094, consideration 4, and 4036, considerations 6 to 8), not in a case of non-renewal of a contract, as the present one. In another case of non-renewal in connection to the abolition of a post, the Tribunal held that the Organization “was obliged to explore with the complainant other employment options prior to his separation”, but it did so having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, where the complainant had been “employed on a series of short-term appointments for much of the complainant’s employment [...] [b]ut […] nonetheless had worked, in a real and practical sense, for over a decade and a half in the service of the Organization”, that is, more than 15 years […] (see Judgment 3159, consideration 20; see also Judgments 4654, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).
  In the present case, the Organization was not bound by any specific provision to identify an alternative post. Where the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified, the direct reassignment of the staff member to another adequate post, if it exists, is not mandatory. […] of staff members is intrinsically linked to the duration of the specific projects for which they are engaged, and the availability of funding for the positions that they occupy”. However, as noted above and consistent with its duty of care, the Organization placed the complainant on special leave without pay after the expiry of her fixed-term contract […] to enable her to apply to post vacancies within IOM as an internal candidate.
  The Organization also explored, albeit to no avail, other employment options for the complainant. The evidence in the file shows that the Organization made serious efforts and attempts in this respect, on multiple occasions. Namely, the complainant was encouraged to contact the Head of Talent Management for assistance, to update her personal history form, and to apply for any vacancies for which she considered herself to be qualified. The Head, Talent Management, maintained regular contact with the complainant regarding her preferences and the post vacancies to which she had applied, which included “consistent follow-up communication with management in Missions and Regional Offices” to support her candidacy.
  As a result, the Tribunal cannot conclude that IOM violated its duty of care towards the complainant. To this extent, it is not sufficient […] to demonstrate that she was unsuccessful in applying for a range of positions.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159, 3908, 4036, 4094, 4654
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4834

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  As the Federation points out, and the facts make clear, the complainant’s position was never abolished but could no longer be funded, and consequently his contract was not extended. The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 11 of Judgment 4231, for example, that ordinarily, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, an organization’s duty to reassign a staff member arises when a post is abolished. As there is no specific provision to the contrary, the Federation had no obligation to reassign the complainant.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4231
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; organisation's duties; reassignment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4819

  
  138th Session, 2024
  European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place him on “administrative leave” as a consequence of the structural reorganization of the Eurocontrol Agency, the Organisation’s secretariat, which led to the abolition of his functions and the launch of a reassignment procedure, as well as the decision to reject his allegations of moral harassment.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  Still with respect to the decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019, the complainant considers, secondly, that they are based on spurious grounds. The purportedly substantial reorganization of the NTS Division which the complainant headed was purely fictitious, his functions were not in fact abolished as had been indicated to him at the meeting of 5 July 2019, and no other staff member in his Division was really disadvantaged by the introduction of the new Technology Division. He also considers that a reorganization due to be finalized in September 2019 could not, under any circumstances, give rise to a decision to abolish his functions on 5 July 2019, that is more than three months in advance. Accordingly, the complainant takes the view that he was never afforded the opportunity to ascertain the real reasons for which his functions were abolished, as the Joint Committee for Disputes also unanimously observed. In this regard, the complainant refutes each of the various grounds relied on in turn by Eurocontrol, whether in the decisions of 5 July 2019 or in its written submissions to the Tribunal, and notes a contradiction between the grounds set forth successively by the Organisation.
  The Tribunal notes that in the memorandum of the Head of the Human Resources and Services Unit of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019, it was firstly stated that following the reorganization of the Agency, the NTS Division would be abolished, as would the complainant’s functions. It was indicated secondly, in an email of 8 August 2019, that following the regrouping of all of the Agency’s information technology activities, the role of Head of the new Technology Division had become a substantially different role from that of Head of the NTS Division, in particular because that new division was approximately three times the size of the former NTS Division. Thirdly, the Agency argued that the organizational changes introduced meant that new skills were required for managerial positions, and that the “leadership” style desired and required by the Director General no longer matched the profile of the complainant, who was more a technical expert than a “leader”.
  Thus, the specific justifications given concerning the various decisions of which the complainant was notified on 5 July 2019 changed as time went by, in line with his criticisms. The initial outright abolition of his functions became a substantial modification of the duties to be performed and, finally, turned into a modification of the “leadership” style required of the incumbents of managerial posts. This is all the more regrettable given that the complainant clearly stated, and this is not disputed by Eurocontrol, on the one hand, that from 2014 to 2017 he had headed the NTS Division, which already consisted of some 150 staff members and in which all of the Agency’s information technology services were grouped together before it was decided to split them, and, in July 2019, to regroup them again, and, on the other hand, that his various performance evaluation reports, in particular those relating to this period, had always been very positive, in particular with regard to his “leadership” capacity.
  It follows that the various grounds on which the above-mentioned decisions are purported to be based cannot be considered valid and adequate within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4108, consideration 3, and 1817, consideration 7).
  This plea is, therefore, well-founded.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4108, 4467
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; motivation; motivation of final decision; reorganisation;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  At the outset, it should be recalled that consistent precedent has it that decisions concerning restructuring within an international organization, including the abolition of posts, may be taken at the discretion of the executive head of the organization 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 organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgments 4608, consideration 7, 4405, consideration 2, 4180, consideration 3, or 4004, consideration 2, and the case law cited therein). However, the Tribunal has found that the abolition of any post must be based on objective grounds and must not serve as a pretext for removing staff regarded as unwanted, since this would constitute an abuse of authority (see Judgments 4599, consideration 11, 4353, consideration 6, 2830, consideration 6(b), and 1231, consideration 26).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1231, 2830, 4004, 4180, 4353, 4405, 4599, 4608
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; discretion; reorganisation;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The complainant further argues [...] that the decision to place him on “administrative leave” is, in itself, unlawful, given that there is no provision for this administrative status in the Staff Regulations and the Rules of Application thereof. He notes in this regard that he is the only Agency staff member to have been removed from his functions and placed on “administrative leave” in the context of the reorganization carried out in 2019.
  In its reply, Eurocontrol contends that the mere fact that “administrative leave” is not expressly provided for by the Staff Regulations does not, however, render its application unlawful. It argues that this measure formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments detailed in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and was a legitimate means of managing complex situations caused by restructuring measures resulting in the abolition of the functions of the official concerned and in which immediate reassignment was not possible, in particular because of the complainant’s high grade at the time of the reorganization. [...]
  There is no provision in Article 5 that the official concerned may, while his potential reassignment is being reviewed, be placed on temporary “administrative leave”, as such a status is not provided for by the Staff Regulations or the Rules of Application. As the members of the Joint Committee for Disputes rightly pointed out in their report of 8 July 2020, this status does not appear in the exhaustive list of possible statuses to which staff members may be assigned, as laid down by Article 37 of the Staff Regulations, and while the term “administrative leave” is used in Article 10 of Rule of Application No. 6 concerning the terms and conditions governing leave, it is used in an entirely different context, namely where an official is placed on “administrative leave granted on an exceptional basis by the Agency’s Medical Officer”, pursuant to Article 59(6) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, since the determination of the administrative status assigned to a staff member must be considered an essential part of her or his status, the Organisation is also mistaken in its mere assertion that the measure of placement on temporary “administrative leave” formed a natural part of the process of exploring potential reassignments provided for in Article 5 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations [...].
  It follows that the plea whereby the decision to place the complainant on temporary “administrative leave” is tainted with an error of law is also founded.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; reorganisation; special leave;
  

  Considerations 16-18

  Extract:

  The complainant also argues that due to the senior position that he held in the Agency, his exemplary career path, the abrupt nature of his ousting and the “misleading”* nature of the entire reassignment procedure launched in his regard, he is justified in claiming compensation from the Organisation for the significant moral injury that he has suffered.
  The Tribunal, first of all, considers indisputable that the complainant’s annual appraisals were always highly favourable [...].
  Moreover, the abrupt manner in which the complainant was ousted is in no doubt either in the circumstances of the case.
  Furthermore, the various decisions of which he was notified on 5 July 2019 are based on manifestly unlawful acts [...].
  Lastly, the Tribunal observes that the manner in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted following his ousting also caused him obvious moral injury. [...]
  In summary, it is clear that, during the reassignment procedure launched in his regard, the complainant had no prospect of being reclassified [...]. The Tribunal notes in this respect that Eurocontrol itself acknowledges, without providing any further explanation on this point, that “it was not feasible for the complainant to return to work in a structure in which his functions ha[d] been abolished” [...].
  In the light of the above, the Tribunal must conclude that the overall context in which the complainant’s reassignment procedure was conducted can only have been very painful for him, which warrants compensation for moral injury.

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; moral injury; reassignment;
  

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  With regard to the various decisions of 5 July 2019 to abolish the complainant’s functions at the time it was decided to reorganize the Agency, to launch a reassignment procedure in his regard and to place him on “administrative leave” with immediate effect, the complainant alleges, firstly, a violation of his right to be heard, which Eurocontrol disputes.
  However, the Tribunal finds that the written submissions of the parties show that the purpose of the discussion that took place on 5 July 2019 – the day on which the Director of the DNM announced the reorganization of the Agency’s structure to staff – was clearly not to hear the complainant about the proposed course of action to be taken in his regard, but simply to notify him of the decisions already taken concerning him. Similarly, it appears that the requests for explanations made by the complainant in the following days also went unanswered.
  In this respect, Eurocontrol submits that the purpose of the exercise in this case was to reorganize its services and that the right to be heard individually could not, in any event, be considered in the context of such a general decision.
  However, the Tribunal notes that, beyond the reorganization of services exercise decided upon for managerial reasons, the decisions taken on 5 July 2019 had a fundamental impact on the complainant’s situation, since they had, in particular, led to the abolition of his functions, which he strongly contests. These decisions had thus an adverse impact on the complainant, for which reason he should have had the opportunity to state his views before they were taken (see, for example, Judgments 4622, consideration 10, 3124, consideration 3, 1817, consideration 7, and 1484, consideration 8).
  The plea that the right to be heard was violated is therefore well-founded as far as the decision to abolish the complainant’s functions is concerned.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1484, 1817, 3124, 4622
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; reorganisation; right to be heard;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4654

  
  136th Session, 2023
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant seeks a redefinition of his employment relationship and the setting aside of the decision not to renew his employment contract.

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  It is clear from the submissions that the functions of statistician that he performed in HRMD no longer met that department’s requirements at the time when the decisions were taken. The IT projects on which the complainant mostly worked – namely those in the “ERP portfolio” – were due to finish in June 2017. Furthermore, new applications meant that WIPO’s various administrative units could now compile their own human resources statistics rather than needing as a matter of course to consult a specialist in this field employed within HRMD, with the result that HRMD no longer needed to have a full-time statistician. Contrary to what the complainant submits, the job description for his post, as drawn up in 2008, had been rendered obsolete, given that the content of a document of this type does not confer an entitlement to the continued existence of the post to which it relates.
  It thus appears that sufficient reasons underlay the abolition of the complainant’s post to justify that decision and accordingly that the disputed decision not to renew his appointment was itself based on valid, objective reasons, in compliance with the requirement recalled in consideration 16(b) [...].

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; motivation; outsourcing; post description;
  

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  [T]he decision to separate the complainant from service was taken by WIPO on the grounds that, in its view, most of the requirements which the complainant’s employment had met had gradually disappeared, so there was no reason to renew his contract. While, as the Organization correctly observes, staff members with temporary appointments do not hold budget posts, the Tribunal considers that the disappearance of the functions performed by the holder of such an appointment is still an abolition of post within the meaning of the applicable case law, in any event in the case of functions that have been performed on a continuous basis. It follows that, although WIPO was not under an obligation to redeploy the complainant, it was nevertheless required, in view of the length of his employment relationship with the Organization, to explore with him other employment options prior to his separation, even though the measure at issue was not a termination of a current appointment (see, for comparable situations, Judgments 3159, consideration 20, and 2902, consideration 14).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2902, 3159
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; reassignment; reclassification; separation from service;
  

  Consideration 20

  Extract:

  The complainant [...] submits that WIPO did not provide him with sufficient assistance to allow him to be redeployed in a new post after his contract ended.
  As stated in consideration 16(c) above, the Tribunal considers that the Organization was required to explore other employment options with the complainant before terminating his appointment. However, the submissions show that WIPO was aware of this duty and made every effort to comply with it. In the aforementioned memorandum of 27 March 2012, HRMD “encourage[d] [the complainant] to submit [his] application for all the vacancy notices already published or to be published which interest[ed] [him] and for which [he] consider[ed] that [he had] the necessary qualifications”, bearing in mind that the only legal way for the complainant to obtain a post filled by a fixed-term appointment was to be successful in a recruitment competition. A pressing invitation to apply for vacant posts – this time including posts that might be offered by employers other than WIPO – was again sent to the complainant in the memorandum of 12 August 2016, which also stated that “HRMD [would] increase its efforts to identify a post matching [his] qualifications”. That advice was repeated in the letter from the Legal Counsel of 15 November 2016. The complainant did in fact apply for 12 competitions to fill posts at WIPO between 2011 and 2016 and, although none of his applications proved successful, the Organization cannot be held responsible, especially as it had enabled him to receive individual support from HRMD’s Performance and Development Section and a training designed to facilitate his career transition.
  In light of these various findings, the Tribunal considers that the plea that WIPO was negligent in this respect cannot be accepted (see, for a comparable situation, [...] Judgment 3159, considerations 21 to 23).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3159
  

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; reassignment; reclassification;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; complaint dismissed; conversion of contract; late appeal; non-renewal of contract; redefinition of contract; short-term;
  

  
  
  

• 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 keywords

  Keywords:

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

  
  
  

• 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.

  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 4499

  
  134th Session, 2022
  World Customs Organization (Customs Co-operation Council)
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following the abolition of her post.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  abolition of post; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; late appeal;
  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | next >