2021-惇蹋厙AT-1082

惇蹋厙AT Held or 惇蹋厙DT Pronouncements

惇蹋厙AT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the 惇蹋厙DT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, 惇蹋厙AT also found no error in the 惇蹋厙DT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, 惇蹋厙AT found no error in the 惇蹋厙DT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member providing language services was reassigned to a different duty station within a Mission, due to operational necessity. The staff member＊s contract specified that she was to provide language services throughout the area of operation of the Mission, and not just the original duty station where she was assigned. The new placement involved an additional commute of 17 km for her. She challenged the reassignment decision at the 惇蹋厙DT, which dismissed her application finding the contested decision lawful, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, and thus, a lawful exercise of discretion.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration has the discretion to appoint, transfer and promote staff, provided that it acts fairly, justly, and transparently. The staff member has the burden of proof to show administrative wrongdoing. The Administration can reassign staff members out of operational necessity and can transfer staff members to different duty stations if allowed under the terms and conditions of employment, and provided that the action is lawful, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate. An additional commute of 17 km is not particularly burdensome and as such not a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

惇蹋厙AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 惇蹋厙DT judgment.

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 惇蹋厙DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 惇蹋厙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.

Applicants/Appellants

Kanbar

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement