Reassignment (381, 382, 649,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Reassignment
Total judgments found: 103
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
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;
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.
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.
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 5025
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of reassignment made pursuant to a call for expression of interest and the decision to cancel a selection procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation; selection procedure;
Judgment 5024
140th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of a reorganisation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
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.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
Dans le jugement 3916, au considérant 6, le Tribunal a rappelé qu’une organisation méconnaît ses obligations en la matière quand elle omet d’agir en concertation avec l’intéressé pour déceler toutes les opportunités de réaffectation existantes et de tenir des entretiens dans cette optique. De la même manière, dans les jugements 3755, au considérant 6, et 3437, au considérant 6, le Tribunal a souligné que, avant de parvenir à une décision de résiliation, il appartient à une organisation de vérifier, par exemple, si le fonctionnaire est disposé à accepter un poste d’un grade inférieur à celui qu’il occupait précédemment et, dans l’affirmative, d’étendre ses investigations en conséquence.
En l’espèce, la tenue d’un tel dialogue n’a manifestement pas eu lieu, tant en ce qui concerne un poste de grade inférieur qu’un poste de grade supérieur, au regard duquel la défenderesse reconnaissait elle même que l’intéressée pouvait potentiellement manifester un intérêt. Or le respect du droit de la requérante d’être entendue préalablement à la décision de résilier son engagement aurait à tout le moins permis de déterminer si de telles éventualités étaient envisageables. Il aurait, de surcroît, permis de comprendre pourquoi l’affectation de la requérante à des postes tels que ceux confiés à celle-ci pendant la durée des enquêtes menées sur ses plaintes pour harcèlement moral ne pouvaient pas satisfaire les besoins de l’Organisation et de l’intéressée dans la continuité de leur relation.
[L]e Tribunal a rappelé que les textes réglementaires adoptés par une organisation ne peuvent à eux seuls avoir pour effet de limiter l’obligation faite à cette dernière d’étudier d’autres possibilités d’emploi au sein de l’organisation pour les membres du personnel dont les postes ont été supprimés (voir le jugement 4097, au considérant 9). De plus, le respect allégué de ces dispositions ne dispense pas une organisation de son obligation de respecter le droit du fonctionnaire visé d’être entendu afin que son point de vue soit pris en considération avant que n’intervienne la décision de résiliation, dont les conséquences sont à l’évidence des plus sérieuses.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3437, 3755, 3916, 4097
Keywords:
reassignment; termination of employment;
Judgment 5002
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment following her refusal to accept two reassignment proposals.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment; refusal; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 5001
139th Session, 2025
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her in the context of the 2019 Mobility Exercise.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As the complainant challenges a reassignment decision, the Tribunal recalls its case law which recognizes the wide discretion of an executive head of an international organization to reassign staff in the interest of the organization. So far as concerns UNAIDS, the discretion is enshrined in Article 1.2 of the Staff Regulations, which states that all staff members are subject to the authority of the executive head of the organization and to assignment by her or him to any of the activities or offices of the organization. The Tribunal has therefore stated that it may interfere with a decision to reassign a staff member 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 was drawn from the evidence. The Tribunal has however emphasised that the organization must show due regard, in both form and substance, for the dignity of the official concerned, particularly by providing her or him with work of the same level of responsibilities as she or he performed in the previous post and matching her or his qualifications (see Judgment 4599, consideration 19). The Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595, for example, that an international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed. It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed. The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury. While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4595, 4599
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; judicial review; reassignment; role of the tribunal; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment 4988
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was a patent examiner in the area of competence G01R in Berlin, contests the general decision to close that area of competence as well as the individual decision to reassign him pursuant to that closure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reassignment; reorganisation;
Judgment 4963
139th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was abolished – challenges the decision to assign her to a new post while downgrading her by two grades, the decision to assign her temporarily to another post with retroactive effect, and the decision to reject her application to a competition procedure.
Consideration 5
Extract:
Le Tribunal observe toutefois que cette affectation, même sans attribution de fonctions effectives, avait pour but de placer temporairement la requérante dans une situation qui lui permettait de conserver son grade et son échelon durant la période s’étant écoulée entre la date effective de la suppression de son poste et celle de la prise de ses nouvelles fonctions auprès d’une autre direction. La circonstance que la décision en question, bien que signée par le Directeur général, ne soit pas datée ne constitue pas une irrégularité substantielle de nature à rendre cette décision illégale. Compte tenu par ailleurs de la circonstance que cette décision visait à couvrir une période déjà écoulée tout en maintenant la requérante dans la situation qui était la sienne sur le plan de son traitement et des autres avantages pécuniaires qui y étaient liés, la rétroactivité était inévitable, de même que la situation fictive qui était ainsi réservée à l’intéressée en raison de cette rétroactivité.
Keywords:
reassignment; retroactivity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; downgrading; reassignment; selection procedure;
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 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 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:
appointment without competition; duty of care; judicial review; reassignment; report of the internal appeals body; right of appeal;
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;
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; leave; reassignment;
Judgment 4843
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was suppressed – challenges the decision to transfer another official to a post to which he believes he should have been reassigned as a priority.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; reassignment;
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.
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.
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;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; reassignment; reorganisation;
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.
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 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The general principles in the Tribunal’s case law concerning decisions to reassign staff have most recently been discussed in consideration 2 of Judgment 4595:
“Consistent precedent has it that an executive head of an international organization has wide discretionary powers to manage the affairs of the organization pursuant to the policy directives and its rules, and that such decisions are consequently subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will ascertain whether a transfer decision is taken in accordance with the relevant rules on competence, form or procedure; whether it rests upon a mistake of fact or law, or whether it amounts to abuse of authority. The Tribunal will not rule on the appropriateness of the decision as it will not substitute the organization’s view with its own (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 2). An international organization must carefully take into account the interests and dignity of staff members when effecting a transfer to which the staff member concerned is opposed (see, for example, Judgment 4427, under 11). It is incumbent upon an international organization to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, particularly if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgment 3601, under 20). [...]
The Tribunal has also stated that every international organization is bound by a duty of care to treat its staff members with dignity and avoid causing them undue and unnecessary injury (see, for example, Judgment 4253, under 3). While the head of an international organization must take into account the organization’s interests as well as the staff member’s abilities and interests in the exercise of the discretion to transfer a staff member, in cases where the two are at odds, greater weight may be accorded by the decision-maker to the interests of the organization (see Judgment 2635, under 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2635, 3601, 4253, 4427, 4595
Keywords:
judicial review; reassignment; transfer;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; reassignment; termination of employment; transfer;
Consideration 8
Extract:
One legal issue presented for consideration by the pleas is whether the power to reassign an official to such a position is in any way conditioned or qualified in circumstances where a competition is on foot to fill the position. While it is not explicitly put this way by the complainant, it is the import of one of her pleas. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the direct appointment of a person to a position in circumstances where it denied the complainant “a right to compete” (see generally Judgments 4069, 3742, 3288 and 2959). By parity of reasoning, and notwithstanding the unequivocal bias just referred to, the decision to appoint the complainant, by way of reassignment, to the position in Cameroon deprived those who had entered the competition following the 27 December 2017 vacancy announcement of their right to compete and for each to have their candidature assessed on its merits. Deprivation of that right would involve a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith (see Judgments 4619, consideration 8, and 4618, consideration 8) to those who entered the competition. Consistent with the existence of this duty to act in good faith, the power to fill a position by reassignment, should not be interpreted as authorising reassignment
to a position when a competition is on foot to fill the very same position. There is an implied limitation on the exercise of the power to reassign. Thus, the decision of 12 January 2018 to reassign the complainant to the position in Cameroon was not lawful. Accordingly, the decision of 16 March 2018 to terminate her employment because she had refused the reassignment, was tainted by the unlawfulness of the reassignment decision and the decision to terminate should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3288, 3742, 4069, 4618, 4619
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; reassignment; selection procedure; termination of employment; transfer;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
