爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration’s decision to discontinue the position she was encumbering resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper motives. On the issue of the termination of the indefinite appointment, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s findings that the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy established a two-step process in cases of abolition of posts or reduction of staff. 爆料网AT disagreed with 爆料网DT in its interpretation of the scope of 爆料网HCR’s undertaking in paragraph 4 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy to verify that there were no staff on temporary appointments “undertaking similar functions” to those of the discontinued position, and whose contract discontinuation would mitigate the need for a comparative review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had interpreted paragraph 4 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy too narrowly, and its interpretation was incompatible with the higher norms set out in Staff Rule 9.6(e) and (f). 爆料网AT held that a staff member on a temporary appointment as Protection Associate in the General Service category at the G-6 level could not be regarded as performing functions like those of the staff member in her position as Associate Legal Officer in the National Professional Officer category at the NOB level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网HCR had not failed to follow the procedures set out in paragraph 4 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy. 爆料网AT, pursuant to Article 4.2 of the 爆料网AT RoP, by majority with Judge John Murphy, Judge Dimitrios Raikos, and Judge Martha Halfeld dissenting, upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the staff member’s cross-appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in its entirety.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions: 1) to abolish the post that funded her position of Associate Legal Officer in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (爆料网HCR); 2) to terminate her indefinite appointment. 爆料网DT found that the decision to terminate the Applicant’s indefinite appointment was unlawful. Regarding the decision to abolish the post she encumbered and to discontinue the position of Associate Legal Officer, 爆料网DT rejected the contention that the post had been reclassified rather than abolished. 爆料网DT found that 爆料网HCR’s reclassification procedures were not invoked. 爆料网DT found that the process leading to the abolition of the post encumbered by the Applicant respected the applicable procedures, and that there was no evidence of improper motives. 爆料网DT found that that the decision to terminate the Applicant’s indefinite appointment was unlawful due to a fundamental procedural error in implementing 爆料网HCR’s Comparative Review Policy for Locally Recruited Staff Members (爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy). 爆料网DT found that there were options available to retain the Applicant under paragraph 4 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy, which required 爆料网HCR to verify that there were no staff members on temporary appointments undertaking similar functions to those of the discontinued position and whose contract discontinuation would mitigate the need for a comparative review. 爆料网DT ordered the rescission of the decision to terminate the Applicant’s indefinite appointment. In lieu of rescission, 爆料网DT ordered the payment of compensation. The Secretary-General appealed and the Applicant cross appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网DT is afforded large discretion in relation to case management matters. 爆料网AT will not lightly interfere with the broad discretion of 爆料网DT in the management of its cases. The 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy established a two-step process in cases of abolition of posts or reduction of staff. Before undertaking a comparative review, 爆料网HCR is required to follow the preliminary step set out in paragraph 4 of the Policy. Only after the concerned office has verified that there are “no staff members on temporary appointments or affiliate workforce undertaking similar functions to those of the discontinued position(s) and whose contract discontinuation would mitigate the need for a comparative review” would a comparative review process be undertaken in accordance with paragraph 5 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy. The interpretation of a rule is made within the context of the hierarchy in which the rule appears. A staff member’s appointment is subject to the Staff Regulations and Rules, and incorporates the relevant administrative issuances issued by the Organization. In general terms, administrative issuances set out instructions and procedures for the implementation of the Staff Regulations and Rules. Just as a Staff Rule may not conflict with the Staff Regulation under which it is made, an administrative issuance may not conflict with the applicable Staff Regulation or Rule which it implements. Finally, in interpreting the terms of a staff member’s appointment, one may also draw upon general principles of law insofar as they apply to the international civil service. The phrase “similar functions” in paragraph 4 of the 爆料网HCR Comparative Review Policy cannot be interpreted in isolation from the Staff Rule that it was designed to implement. The phrase “similar functions” is general in nature and its meaning can only be understood within the context of Staff Rule 9.6(e) and (f).