2024-Ģ��ƵAT-1470

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that the staff member had had ample opportunity to comment on her lateral transfer. The Ģ��ƵAT noted that she had been aware of the recommendation to separate her from her First Reporting Officer, against whom she had made a complaint of prohibited conduct, and had had the opportunity to voice her concerns and also had been informed of the reassignment decision nearly a month before she took up the new post.

The Ģ��ƵAT accepted that the responsibilities and job functions of the new post had been commensurate with the staff member��s competence, skills, and experience. The Ģ��ƵAT found that there had been no increased risk to her future job security and that she had suffered no economic prejudice.

The Ģ��ƵAT concluded that the procedural requirements of the reassignment had been met.

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Administration had dedicated extensive time and human resources managing the conflict between the staff member and her First Reporting Officer over four years, including mediation efforts. The Ģ��ƵAT agreed with the Ģ��ƵDT that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for the reassignment. The Ģ��ƵAT held that the reassignment decision was fair and operationally in the best interest of her former unit.

The Ģ��ƵAT found no error in the Ģ��ƵDT��s determination that there had been no evidence of an improper motive in the reassignment decision.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member contested the decision to laterally transfer her from the position of Contracts Management Officer to the position of Procurement Officer.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2023/041, the Ģ��ƵDT dismissed the application.

The staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

There is no procedural requirement that the staff member consent to the reassignment.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Nina Humackic

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement