爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-450

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. 爆料网AT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. 爆料网AT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management’s (OHRM) advocacy and information management branch to actively apply for other positions advertised on OHRM’s job portal. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General applied the specific Regulations and Rules in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

Accountability referral: 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Bali contested the decision to terminate his appointment. 爆料网DT found that the termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority. 爆料网DT ordered rescission of the decision to separate Mr Bali from service and his reinstatement, or in the alternative, two years’ net base salary. 爆料网DT further awarded Mr Bali one year’s net base salary for substantive irregularity and four months’ net base salary for procedural irregularity. 爆料网DT also referred two staff members to the Secretary-General for accountability for alleged improprieties in the course of the comparative review.

Legal Principle(s)

An international organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. The Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection and, in reviewing such decisions, it is the role of 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT to assess whether the applicable Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they have been applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.