Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the absence of a performance appraisal, Ms. Rees¡¯ reassignment was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, held that the relief granted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the rescission of the reassignment decision, was unsuitable and instead enhanced the award of moral damages. As to the non-renewal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in finding the decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, given Ms Rees¡¯ consistent refusal to take up her new assignment, her refusal to report to her previous supervisor and her refusal to apply to other vacancies, that the High Commissioner properly exercised her discretionary authority in deciding not to renew Ms Rees¡¯ appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ms Rees had been advised to submit a formal complaint of harassment under ST/SGB/2008/5, which she had failed to do, and held that therefore her insistence on different reporting lines was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the rescission of the non-renewal decision and the award of in-lieu compensation.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decisions to reassign her and subsequently not to renew her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to reassign the staff member was not a lawful exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion as the performance evaluation procedures had not been followed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the circumstances of the reassignment led to the impression that the reassignment had been based on serious wrongdoing by her and as such, the decision was potentially prejudicial to her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that in the absence of a performance appraisal, the non-extension of the appointment based on her performance was equally unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ordered the rescission of the reassignment and non-renewal decisions and in-lieu compensation, compensation for moral damages, and the removal of a performance evaluation memorandum from the Applicant¡¯s official status file and placement of copies of its two judgments therein.
Legal Principle(s)
The Secretary-General has broad discretion to reassign staff members. However, a decision to reassign a staff member must be properly motivated, and not tainted by improper motives, or taken in violation of mandatory procedures. A reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field.