Source: https://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2016/02/13/undt-2016-002/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 12:55:49
Document Index: 709205923

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2', 'art. 8', 'art. 8', 'art. 7', 'art. 8', 'art. 7', 'art. 7', 'art 1', 'art. 101']

undt-2016-002 - Fichier PDF
undt 2016 002 .pdf
Nom original: undt-2016-002.pdf
Ce document au format PDF 1.5 a été généré par Microsoft® Word 2010, et a été envoyé sur fichier-pdf.fr le 13/02/2016 à 18:09, depuis l'adresse IP 41.225.x.x. La présente page de téléchargement du fichier a été vue 423 fois.
Taille du document: 411 Ko (35 pages).
Judge Alessandra Greceanu
Judgment No.: UNDT/2016/002
CORDOBA RUIZ
Daniel Trup, OSLA
Stephen Margetts, ALS/OHRM, UN Secretariat
Sarahi Lim Baró, ALS/OHRM, UN Secretariat
UNDT/NY/2014/052
Case No. UNDT/NY/2014/052
Judgment No. UNDT/2016/002
The Applicant, a former Chief Departmental Officer in the Regional
Coordination Unit (“RCU”) in Fort Liberté, Haiti, at the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti (“MINUSTAH”), contests two decisions. The first
contested decision is the decision notified to the Applicant on 29 March 2014 not
to include her in the comparative review exercise to determine which of the Civil
Affairs Officers at MINUSTAH would retain their posts after a downsizing of
the Civil Affairs Section (“CAS”). The second contested decision notified to
the Applicant on 13 May 2014 is not to renew her fixed-term appointment
(“FTA”) beyond its expiration date on 30 June 2014.
The Applicant requests 24 months’ net base salary as compensation for
the alleged manifestly unlawful decisions to exclude her from the comparative
review process and the resulting non-renewal on the grounds that she had
a reasonable expectation that her contract would have been extended for a further
The Applicant was recruited in 2005 for MINUSTAH as a P-4 Civil
Affairs Officer under a fixed-term appointment, which was since extended several
times until 30 June 2014.
Following the 12 January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, which resulted in
more than 220,000 deaths, the General Assembly approved temporary positions
(both national and international) to support the immediate recovery,
reconstruction and stability efforts in Haiti. Following the completion of
Presidential elections in 2011, MINUSTAH commenced a drawdown of
the Mission’s post-earthquake surge capabilities. The process involved the
phasing out of 352 civilian positions (162 international staff, 138 national staff,
and 52 United Nations volunteers) by the end of June 2012.
The Secretary-General’s proposed budget for MINUSTAH for the period
of 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 was considered by the Advisory Committee for
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (“ACABQ”) in its report 67/780/Add.5
dated 29 April 2013. Among the proposed staffing changes was the creation of
RCU, under the direct supervision of the Office of the Special Representative for
the Secretary-General (“SRSG”), to perform regional coordination and
management responsibilities. Specifically, the ACABQ noted that 10 posts (five
P-5 and five P-4 posts) were being reassigned from CAS to RCU to facilitate
cross-mission liaison and monitoring at the local level, confidence-building,
conflict resolution and the extension of State Authority.
On 1 and 2 May 2013, the Head of CAS held a coordination meeting with
the Chiefs of Regional Offices within MINUSTAH, which the Applicant
attended. The Head of CAS informed staff concerning the Secretary-General’s
proposal to downsize CAS and distributed the draft plan of the proposed new
mission structure that included Regional and Departmental Offices outside of
CAS. The new structure and new positions were discussed and staff were given
draft terms of reference (“TORs”) for the heads of Regional and Departmental
offices. Staff members were informed that the heads of the Regional Offices will
represent the SRSG in the regions and that the regional coordinator will have
a supporting role to the heads of Regional Offices. Staff members were informed
that the new structure, if approved, included Regional and Departmental Offices
that were separate from CAS.
On 28 June 2013, the General Assembly adopted resolution 67/275
(Financing of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti), which was
published on 19 July 2013 and endorsed the conclusions and recommendations
contained in the ACABQ report, including the reassignment of 10 posts (five P-5
and five P-4 posts) from CAS to the newly created RCU and the change in
functions to be performed against these posts from Civil Affairs Officers to Chief
Departmental Officers. The General Assembly requested that the SecretaryGeneral ensure their full implementation. Once the post encumbered by the
Applicant was reassigned to RCU, the Applicant was reassigned to work within
RCU with a new functional title of Chief Departmental Officer and with new
functions. The Applicant’s new duties included new terms of reference that were
distinct from her prior work with CAS.
On 6 July 2013, the Director of Mission Support (“DMS”) in MINUSTAH
signed a Letter of Appointment offering the Applicant a one year FTA at the P-4
level as a Civil Affairs Officer from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2014. The Letter of
Appointment indicated that the Applicant’s “functional title” was Civil Affairs
Officer, mentioned that an FTA did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise,
of renewal, and that the contract was to expire without prior notice on
30 June 2014. It further stated under a section on “Special Conditions”:
Please note that, in accordance with staff regulation 1.2(c), staff
members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and
to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of
the United Nations. In this context, all staff members are required
to move periodically to new positions, organizational units, duty
stations or occupational groups in accordance with established
The Letter of Appointment was countersigned by the Applicant on 10 July 2013.
On 13 July 2013, a Personnel Action was issued to extend the Applicant’s
appointment and “Reassign Within Department”. Her functional title was listed as
Civil Affairs Officer.
Following the General Assembly’s approval of the new mission structure,
on 15 July 2013, the ad interim SRSG in MINUSTAH informed all Chiefs of
Departmental and Regional Offices of “the decision to transfer the Chiefs of
Regional and Departmental Offices to the Office of the SRSG, reporting to
the SRSG through the Regional Coordinator as First Reporting Officer” and
provided each Chief with TORs for their offices.
On 15 July 2013, the Applicant was informed in writing of the terms of
reference for Chiefs of Regional and Departmental Offices, which were effective
immediately in a revised format to reflect the decision to transfer the Chiefs of
Regional and Departmental Offices to the Office of the SRSG and to reiterate
their managerial/supervisory responsibilities. On the same day, the Applicant was
reassigned to her new position within RCU.
DMS/006/2014 titled “Downsizing/Reduction of Posts in the 2014–2015
Proposed Budget” (“IC DMS/006/2014”) to all MINUSTAH civilian staff noting
that the mission would be engaging in a downsizing process as a result of
the 2014–2015 proposed budget, which called for a reduction of approximately
eight percent of civilian staff. He informed staff that a Comparative Review Panel
would identify the staff to be retained. Staff members would be reviewed based
on their section, occupational group/functional title, category and level.
On 25 March 2014, the Chief Human Resources Officer (“CHRO”) in
MINUSTAH sent an email to colleagues concerning the retrenchment exercise in
the Civil Affairs Section, asking them to provide an updated personal history
profile, their last two electronic performance appraisal system (“e-PAS”) reports,
and confirmation that their references had been verified. The email was forwarded
to the Applicant by a colleague on 28 March 2014.
On 27 March 2014, DMS issued Information Circular No. DMS/010/2014
titled “Downsizing/Reduction of Posts in the 2014–2015 Proposed Budget:
Establishment of the Comparative Review Panel and review criteria” (“IC
DMS/010/2014”)
the Comparative Review Panel and annexing the terms of reference of the panel.
The downsizing exercise for RCU for the year 2014 involved the abolition
of all five P-4 Chief Departmental Officer posts. The staff members from this
section were not required to go through the comparative review exercise as it was
not applied to RCU because the number of established P-4 posts in the 2013–2014
budget was equal to the number of positions to be abolished in the proposed
budget cycle for 2014–2015.
The downsizing exercise for CAS for the year 2014 included the abolition
of seven posts within the professional category (one P-2, three P-3, and three P-4
posts). Staff members were required to go through a comparative review exercise
because the number of posts within CAS was less than the number of currently
serving staff members. Specifically, three of the five P-4 posts within the Civil
Affairs Section were abolished and the five affected staff members serving within
CAS had to compete for the two remaining P-4 posts.
On 29 March 2014, the Applicant wrote to CHRO asking when P-4 staff
members would receive an email like that sent on 25 March 2014 to other staff.
The same day, CHRO responded that the communication was targeting staff
members in CAS, stating that the Applicant encumbered a post that was not part
of CAS, and that if a staff member did not receive such an email then they would
not be part of the comparative review process.
On 29 April 2014, the Applicant submitted a request for management
evaluation of the decision to deny her the opportunity to participate in
the comparative review process.
On 13 May 2014, the Applicant was informed by DMS that, as a result of
the downsizing of posts in the 2014–2015 budget proposal, her FTA with
MINUSTAH would not be extended beyond its expiration date of 30 June 2014
and that she would be separated from service on that date.
On 16 June 2014, the Applicant submitted a request for management
evaluation of the decision not to renew her FTA and to separate her from service.
On 11 July 2014, the Under-Secretary-General for Management responded
to the Applicant’s requests for management evaluation, noting that the SecretaryGeneral had endorsed the finding of the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”)
that the first request for management evaluation was not receivable and its
recommendation to uphold the decision not to renew the Applicant’s FTA.
On 18 July 2014, the Applicant filed an application before the Tribunal
and, on 20 August 2014, the Respondent filed his reply.
The Applicant’s principal contentions may be summarized as follows:
The MEU considered that the determination of the comparative
review body was not an administrative decision which permitted legal
challenge. The Applicant does not seek to contest the decision of
the comparative review body, but rather the administrative decision which
led to her exclusion from this process. The result of the decision to
exclude the applicant from any comparative review effectively rendered
her ineligible to compete for the remaining civil affairs posts and as
a result led to her non-renewal.
The Administration had a duty to inform the Applicant at the time
of her reassignment, or shortly thereafter, that the change would have an
impact on her job category as Civil Affairs Officer and failed to use a fair
and transparent procedure to inform her that she was no longer considered
a Civil Affair Officer. This resulted in her not being entitled to compete
for the remaining Civil Affairs positions after the retrenchment process.
understanding that her work was in the field of civil affairs. The position
of Chief Departmental Officer maintained many of the job specifications
as that of Civil Affairs Officer and the revised budget for 1 July 2014 to
30 June 2015 indicated that the functions of the Applicant’s post would be
carried out by an existing Civil Affairs Officer.
The manifest failure of the Administration to inform the Applicant
of the change of her post impacted directly on her inability to apply for
civil affairs posts in the comparative review and the non-renewal of
the Applicant’s FTA should be considered unlawful.
The Applicant also states that the Administration did not respect
the general obligation to find alternative posts for staff members whose
posts are abolished as provided by the Staff Rules because she was not
considered for the remaining positions in CAS.
The Respondent’s principal contentions may be summarized as follows:
In keeping with the standard procedures for downsizing missions,
a review process was conducted to identify which positions were to be
retained. Staff members were informed of the comparative review process
and its terms of reference. Specifically, they were informed that they
would either be included or not included in the comparative review
process based on whether or not the section and occupational group within
the section they were assigned to was required to downsize.
The downsizing exercise for RCU for the year 2014 involved
the abolition of all five P-4 Chief Departmental Officer posts.
The comparative review exercise did not apply to RCU for the reason that
the established P-4 posts in the budget 2013–2014 was equal to
the number of positions to be abolished in the proposed budget cycle for
The downsizing exercise for CAS for the year 2014 included
the abolition of seven posts within the professional category (one P-2,
three P-3, and three P-4 posts). Staff members were required to go through
a comparative review exercise because the number of posts within
the Section was less than the number of currently serving staff members.
Specifically, three of the five posts within CAS were abolished and five
affected P-4 staff members serving within CAS had to compete for the two
remaining P-4 posts. The Applicant was not engaged as a Civil Affairs
Officer and had no right to compete for the remaining Civil Affairs Officer
positions when the comparative review process began in March 2014.
The Applicant’s FTA expired; it was not terminated, thus the Applicant
has no right to insist that the Administration find her an alternative
position. The FTA carried no expectancy of renewal and was not renewed
because the General Assembly abolished the post the Applicant
encumbered and the reason for non-renewal was a lack of funding for
the position held by the Applicant. The Applicant has failed to show that
the non-renewal was unlawful.
Articles 2.1(a) and 8 (insofar as relevant) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute
The Dispute Tribunal shall be competent to hear and pass
judgement on an application filed by an individual, as provided for
in article 3, paragraph 1, of the present statute, against
the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of
To appeal an administrative decision that is alleged
to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the
contract of employment. The terms “contract” and “terms of
appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules and all
relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged
An application shall be receivable if:
The Dispute Tribunal is competent to hear and pass
judgement on the application, pursuant to article 2 of the present
An applicant is eligible to file an application,
pursuant to article 3 of the present statute;
An applicant has previously submitted the contested
administrative decision for management evaluation, where
The application is filed within the following
In cases where a management evaluation of the contested
decision is required:
Within 90 calendar days of the applicant’s receipt of
the response by management to his or her submission; or
Within 90 calendar days of the expiry of
the relevant response period for the management evaluation if no
response to the request was provided. The response period shall be
30 calendar days after the submission of the decision to
management evaluation for disputes arising at Headquarters and 45
calendar days for other offices;
Article 7.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides:
Applications shall be submitted to the Dispute Tribunal
through the Registrar within:
90 calendar days of the receipt by the applicant of
the management evaluation, as appropriate;
Staff Regulation 9.3(a)(i) provides:
The Secretary-General may, giving the reasons therefor,
terminate the appointment of a staff member who holds
a temporary, fixed-term or continuing appointment in accordance
with the terms of his or her appointment or for any of the following
If the necessities of service require abolition of the post or
reduction of the staff;
The Staff Rules provide:
Any of the following shall constitute separation from
Abandonment of post;
Expiration of appointment;
Expiration of appointments
A temporary or fixed-term appointment shall expire
automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date
specified in the letter of appointment.
The Secretary-General may, giving the reasons
therefor, terminate the appointment of a staff member who holds
with the terms of the appointment or on any of the following
Abolition of posts or reduction of staff;
Termination for abolition of posts and reduction of staff
Except as otherwise expressly provided in
paragraph (f) below and staff rule 13.1, if the necessities of service
require that appointments of staff members be terminated as
a result of the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff, and
subject to the availability of suitable posts in which their services
can be effectively utilized, provided that due regard shall be given
in all cases to relative competence, integrity and length of service,
staff members shall be retained in the following order of
Staff members holding continuing appointments;
Staff members recruited through competitive
examinations for a career appointment serving on a twoyear fixed-term appointment;
Staff members holding fixed-term appointments.
When the suitable posts available are subject to the principle of
geographical distribution, due regard shall also be given to
nationality in the case of staff members with less than five years of
service and in the case of staff members who have changed their
nationality within the preceding five years.
The provisions of paragraph (e) above insofar as
they relate to staff members in the General Service and related
categories shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such staff
members have received consideration for suitable posts available
within their parent organization at their duty stations.
Staff members specifically recruited for service
with the United Nations Secretariat or with any programme, fund
or subsidiary organ of the United Nations that enjoys a special
status in matters of appointment under a resolution of the General
Assembly or as a result of an agreement entered by the SecretaryGeneral have no entitlement under this rule for consideration for
posts outside the organ for which they were recruited.
A staff member whose fixed-term appointment is to
be terminated shall be given not less than 30 calendar days’ written
notice of such termination or such written notice as may otherwise
be stipulated in his or her letter of appointment.
Rule 11.2
A staff member wishing to formally contest
an administrative decision alleging non-compliance with his or her
contract of employment or terms of appointment, including all
pertinent regulations and rules pursuant to staff regulation 11.1(a),
shall, as a first step, submit to the Secretary-General in writing
a request for a management evaluation of the administrative
A request for a management evaluation shall not be
receivable by the Secretary-General unless it is sent within 60
calendar days from the date on which the staff member received
notification of the administrative decision to be contested. This
deadline may be extended by the Secretary-General pending efforts
for informal resolution conducted by the Office of
the Ombudsman, under conditions specified by the SecretaryGeneral.
A staff member may file an application against
a contested administrative decision, whether or not it has been
amended by any management evaluation, with the United Nations
Dispute Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which
the staff member received the outcome of the management
evaluation or from the date of expiration of the deadline specified
under staff rule 11.2(d), whichever is earlier.
ST/AI/2013/1 (Administration of fixed-term appointments), as corrected
by ST/AI/2013/1/Corr.1, provides:
The purpose of the fixed-term appointment is to enable
the assignment and appointment of staff in accordance with
the regular and changing needs of the Organization.
In accordance with staff regulation 4.5 (c) and staff rule
4.13 (c), a fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy,
legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of
the length of service, except as provided under staff rule 4.14 (b).
Appointment and re-employment
With the exception of the staff referenced in sections 3.2,
3.3 and 3.4 below, the initial fixed-term appointment granted shall
be for a period of one year, including the first appointment of
a staff member after having served as an Associate Expert, and on
secondment or loan from other entities of the United Nations
Renewal and extension of fixed-term appointments
Subject to the needs of the Organization, a fixed-term
appointment may be renewed for any period up to five years under
the conditions described in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 below.
Expiration of appointment and termination
A fixed-term appointment expires on the expiration date
Information Circular No. DMS/006/2014, dated 28 January 2014 and
titled “Downsizing/Reduction of Posts in the 2014–2015 Proposed Budget”,
stated, insofar as it is material to this case (emphasis in original):
Based on the strategic priorities MINUSTAH received for
the 2014/2015 budget submission, the Mission proposed budget
cuts to align mandate implementation with expected resource
In order to prepare for the proposed reduction,
MINUSTAH undertook a review of its current staffing strength to
identify within each Section or standalone Unit, occupational
group, category and level, positions to be retained; established;
abolished and/or nationalized in the new Mission staffing structure.
The following principles will be applied when reviewing
the existing staffing with the proposed staffing in the 2014–2015
If the number of posts by Section, occupational
group/functional title, category and level in the new
Mission structure is equal to the number of currently
serving staff in the same occupation group/functional title,
category and level, there would be no effect on the
incumbent’s current appointment;
Mission structure is greater than the number of currently
incumbent’s current appointment.
Mission structure is less than the number of currently
serving staff in the same Section, occupation
group/functional title, category and level, those affected
staff will go through a downsizing review process.
Staff members will be reviewed based on their Section,
occupational group/functional title, category and level. Staff who
might be affected by the retrenchment process will be informed by
the end of the month of March 2014.
The downsizing review process that is used to identify staff
to be retained in the new Mission Structure will be conducted by
the Comparative Review Panel (CRP) comprised of representatives
nominated by Management and the Staff Unions. The Chief
Human Resources Officer (CHRO) nominates an ex officio
The comparative review is guided by Article 101,
paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter and is conducted on the
basis of the staff member’s professional competence and their
ability to perform the functions in the new Mission structure. This
determination will be made in accordance with the evaluation preapproved criteria by the CRP and a documented record of
satisfactory performance and conduct.
Please note that unlike in last year’s exercise, to expedite
the review process, the present e-Performance cycle will not be
taken into consideration. Therefore, in addition to updating their
Personal History Profiles (PHP) all staff members are requested to
ensure that their e-PER for the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 cycles
are completed and submitted to the Human Resources Section
email address no later than 28 February 2014, as follows:
minustah-careers@un.org.
Information Circular No. DMS/010/2014, dated 27 March 2014 and titled
“Downsizing/Reduction of Posts
the 2014–2015 Proposed Budget:
Establishment of the Comparative Review Panel and review criteria”, stated
insofar as it is material to this case:
The purpose of this information circular is to announce
the establishment of the Comparative Review Panel (CRP) which
is the body responsible for recommending which national and
international Staff Members shall be retained in service through
the downsizing process. The CRP will conduct a comparative
review of Staff’s employment history and competences based on
the TORs contained in the attached annex.
For the purposes of the CRP:
An occupational group represents occupations and suboccupations grouped into categories of work on the basis of
similarity of functions within a specific Section (for
example the occupation group of Administration contains
the sub-occupational group of Administrative Officers).
The functional title is determined upon appointment or
redeployment. In case the functional title does not match
the functions actually performed, the functions truly
exercised will be taken into consideration in the review
process (for example, an Administrative Assistant
performing his/her functions on a post of Legal Assistant).
The CRP will not review posts where staffing by Section,
occupational group/functional title, category and level are equal to
or less than the proposed numbers in the revised Mission structure.
International and National Staff were required to send their
completed PHPs and e-PER to minustah-careers@un.org by
28 February 2014. Staff members who did not comply with
the established deadline are required to immediately submit their
documents no later than 05 April 2014.
The following personnel are not subject to review by
the Comparative Review Panel:
Staff members on Temporary Assignment/Secondment
from a parent duty station or HQ;
Staff members on Temporary Appointment;
Staff members retained in service beyond the mandatory
age of retirement or reaching that age by 31 December
2014 (the later will be placed against surplus vacant posts
Staff members holding permanent appointments.
The annex to IC DMS/010/2014, titled “Annex—Terms of Reference of
the CRP”, states:
CRP Organization of Work
The CRP will be guided by Article 101 of the UN Charter
to ensure that the staff members under review meet the highest
standards of efficiency, competency and integrity. Article 101
states “…The paramount consideration in the employment of the
staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be
the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency
competence and integrity…”
The CRP will review lists of posts and staff members—
provided by the Human Resources Section—where staffing by
Section, occupational group/functional title, category and level is
greater than the proposed number of posts in the revised Mission
In order to guide the review process, the MINUSTAH
Human Resources Section will provide the CRP review group
members with the following documents:
The official lists of posts where staffing by Section,
occupational group/functional title, category and level
is greater than the proposed number of posts in the
revised Mission structure.
CRP Terms of Reference;
Individual Staff Members’ E-PER reports for 2011–
2012 and 2012–2013;
Individual Staff Members’ Personal History Profile
Job descriptions/post requirements;
Individual staff member’s employment page, as
confirmed by the staff member under review
A scoring matrix for the CRP members to complete and
At the end of the review process, the CRP review groups will
return all background documentation to the Human Resources
Section in order to assure the confidentiality of CRP proceedings.
Receivability framework
As established by the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, the Dispute
Tribunal is competent to review ex officio its own competence or jurisdiction
ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis (Pellet 2010-UNAT073; O’Neill 2011-UNAT-182; Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Christensen 2013-UNAT335). This competence can be exercised even if the parties do not raise the issue,
because it constitutes a matter of law and the Statute prevents the Dispute
Tribunal from considering cases that are not receivable.
The Dispute Tribunal’s Statute and the Rules of Procedure clearly
distinguish between the receivability requirements as follows:
The application is receivable ratione personae if it is filed by
a current or a former staff member of the United Nations, including
the United Nations Secretariat or separately administered funds (arts.
3.1(a)–(b) and 8.1(b) of the Statute) or by any person making claims in
the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United
Nations, including the United Nations Secretariat or separately
administered funds and programmes (arts. 3.1(c) and 8.1(b) of
the Statute);
The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is
contesting “an administrative decision that is alleged to be in
noncompliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of
employment” (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously
submitted the contested administrative decision for management
evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute);
The application is receivable ratione temporis if it was filed before
the Tribunal within the deadlines established in art. 8.1(d)(i)–(iv) of
the Statute and art. 7.1–7.3 of the Rules of Procedure.
In order to be receivable by the Dispute Tribunal, an application must
fulfill all the mandatory and cumulative requirements mentioned above.
Receivability ratione personae
The application in respect of two contested decisions was filed by a former
MINUSTAH staff member and is receivable ratione personae. The Tribunal will
therefore consider receivability ratione temporis and ratione materiae.
Receivability ratione temporis
The Applicant was notified of the contested decision to exclude her from
participation in the comparative review process for Civil Affairs Officers on
29 March 2014 and filed a request for management evaluation on 29 April 2014.
She was notified of the decision not to renew her FTA on 13 May 2014 and filed
a request for management evaluation on 16 June 2014. The MEU response was
notified to the Applicant on 11 July 2014.
As results from the mandatory provisions of art. 8.1(d)(i)(a)–(b) of
the Tribunal’s Statute and art. 7 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as staff rules
11.2(d) and 11.4(a), an application before the Tribunal must (“shall”) be filed
within 90 days either from the date of notification of the outcome of management
evaluation or the date of expiry of the 45-day deadline for management evaluation
(for staff stationed outside of New York), whichever is earlier.
The Applicant complied with art. 7.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Rules of
Procedure, filing her application on 18 July 2014, within 90 days of
the 11 July 2014 response to her requests for management evaluation. Therefore
the Tribunal finds the application is receivable ratione temporis in respect of both
Receivability ratione materiae
participation in the comparative review process for the Civil Affairs Officers on
29 March 2014 and she filed a request for management evaluation of this decision
on 29 April 2014. She was notified of the decision not to renew her FTA on
13 May 2014 and the request for management evaluation of this decision was
filed on 16 June 2014. Both requests for management evaluation were filed within
sixty days of notification of the contested decisions, in accordance with staff rule
11.2(c).
As results from the management evaluation response, the MEU considered
the decision to exclude the Applicant from participating in the comparative
review process not to be in itself an administrative decision, because
the comparative review was conducted within CAS to ascertain which staff
members in that section would continue to encumber the residual posts and this
comparative review was not relevant for the Applicant’s contract because it would
lead to certain administrative decisions such as renewal or non-renewal of
appointments only for the staff members in CAS.
The Applicant states that the application is receivable ratione materiae in
relation to both decisions, because the decision to exclude her from
the comparative review process effectively rendered her ineligible to compete for
the remaining Civil Affairs posts, affecting her rights and obligations. As results
from the reply to the application and the closing submissions, the Respondent did
not argue further before the Tribunal that the first contested decision is not
an administrative decision. Therefore, in the light of staff rule 9.6(e), the Tribunal
concludes that the decision that the Applicant was not eligible to participate in
the comparative review had a direct effect on her contractual rights and is
an administrative decision. The non-renewal decision is also an administrative
decision and therefore the application is receivable ratione materiae in respect of
both contested decisions.
The decision not to include the Applicant in the comparative review exercise
The Applicant’s contractual status
As results from the uncontested facts presented by the parties and
supported by the evidence on the record, the Applicant’s FTA as a P-4 Civil
Affairs Officer in CAS was extended for one year from 1 July 2013 until
30 June 2014. The Letter of Appointment signed by the Applicant on
10 July 2013 included, inter alia, the following contractual clauses (emphasis in
This appointment is for a fixed term of 1 year from
the effective date of appointment shown above [1 July 2013]. It
therefore expires without prior notice on 30th day of June 2014.
Please note that, in accordance with staff regulation 1.2 (c),
staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General
and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices
of the United Nations. In this context, all staff members are
required to move periodically to new positions, organizational
units, duty stations or occupational groups in accordance with
This appointment is limited to service with the mission
specified in Part 1. Functional title as per Offer of Appointment.
the Chiefs of Regional Offices during which the participants, including the
Applicant, were informed of the proposed new mission structure that included
Regional and Departmental Offices outside of CAS. On 28 June 2013, the
General Assembly approved the Secretary-General’s proposal to downsize CAS
and to create RCU.
As results from the terms of reference of MINUSTAH Chief Departmental
Officer, which became part of the Applicant’s contract on 15 July 2013 since they
were effective immediately, the following elements of her contract were changed:
the section (from CAS to RCU), the functional title (from Civil Affairs Officer to
Chief of Departmental Officer), the functions (as indicated in the TORs), and
the reporting line. The terms of reference clearly indicated that MINUSTAH
would be represented in Haiti’s ten administrative departments by five newly
created regional offices.
Starting from 1 July 2013, five posts from CAS were reassigned to RCU
and the Applicant was officially informed in writing on 15 July 2013 that her new
functional title was Chief Departmental Officer in RCU, which was distinct from
CAS, with new functions and direct reporting lines to the SRSG. It results that
the modification of the Applicant’s contract became effective as indicated in
the part of the public document “Terms of Reference Minustah Chief of Regional
and Departmental Offices” and the terms of reference for MINUSTAH Chief
Departmental Officer became part of her contract.
Consequently, from 15 July 2013 until 30 June 2014, the Applicant was
the Chief of the North-East Departmental Office/Fort-Liberté in RCU and she was
no longer part of CAS. The terms of reference indicated that Chief Regional and
Departmental Officers reported to the SRSG through the Regional Coordinator,
who was also Chief of CAS, so the only staff member with responsibilities related
both to CAS and RCU.
The Tribunal notes that in the comments received by MEU from
the Administration and included in the management evaluation response,
MINUSTAH explained that “there is no functional title of [Chief Departmental
Officer] available in the Integrated Management Information System (“IMIS”)
and that ‘Civil Affairs Officer’ was the closest available title”. The Tribunal is of
the view that the fact that IMIS was not adapted to reflect the new positions
created in MINUSTAH starting from 1 July 2013 cannot affect the legal validity
of the Applicant’s contractual changes made to implement the General Assembly
resolution 67/275 on financing the MINUSTAH new Regional Coordination
The Tribunal concludes that the Organization respected its obligation to
promptly inform the Applicant in writing of her new position and responsibilities
in RCU and it cannot be reasonably argued by the Applicant that she was not
aware about these important changes in her contractual status and that she
continued to believe that she was part of the Civil Affairs Section.
The Tribunal underlines that IC DMS/006/2014 stated in paras. 3–9 that
the scope and the principles that applied to the downsizing process in
MINUSTAH were as follows:
While the proposed budget will not be finalized by
the General Assembly until mid-20l4, the current proposal, in line
with Headquarters directives, calls for a reduction of
approximately eight (8) percent of civilian staffing in the next
In consultation with Field Personnel Division (FPD),
the Mission prepared a draft Framework on retrenchment
describing each aspect of the process as it will be handled for
the 2014–2015 budget year. Once finalized and endorsed by
the SRSG, the Framework will be disseminated to all staff.
identify within each Section or standalone Unit occupational
abolished and/or nationalized in the new Mission staffing
• If the number of posts by Section, occupational
group/functional title, category and level in the new Mission
structure is equal to the number of currently serving staff in
the same occupational group/functional title, category and
level, there would be no effect on the incumbent’s current
structure is greater than the number of currently serving
staff in the some occupational group/functional title, category
and level, there would be no effect on the incumbent’s current
structure is less than the number of currently serving staff in
the same Section, occupational group/functional title, category
and level, those affected staff will go through a downsizing
The downsizing review process that is used to identify
staff to be retained in this new Mission structure will be
conducted by the Comparative Review Panel (CRP) comprised
of representatives nominated by Management and the Staff Unions.
The Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) nominates an ex
officio representative.
paragraph 3 of the United Nations Charter and is conducted on
the basis of the staff member’s professional competence and their
determination will be made in accordance with evaluation preapproved criteria by the CRP and a documented record of
completed PHPs and e-PER [performance appraisal reports] to
minustah-careers@un.org by 28 February 2014. Staff members
who did not comply with the established deadline, are required to
immediately submit their documents, but no later than
As clearly stated in paras. 6, 7, and 8 of IC DMS/006/2014, if the number
of posts by section, occupational group/functional title, category and level in
the new structure was less than the number of current serving staff in the same
section, occupational group/functional title, category and level, it was mandatory
(as shown by the use of the word “will” in these provisions) that affected staff
would be (i) informed by the end of March 2014; and (ii) reviewed as part of
a downsizing review process conducted by the CRP in order to identify staff to be
retained in the new mission structure.
Paragraph 10 of IC DMS/006/2014 included the requirement for all staff
members to ensure that their performance appraisal reports for the 2011–2012 and
2012–2013 cycles are completed and submitted to the Human Resources
Section’s email address no later than 28 February 2014.
IC DMS/010/2014, sent by DMS to “all Minustah Staff” stated in section
“General” (paras. 10 and 11):
completed PH’s and e-PER to minustah-career@un.org by
the established deadline, are required to immediately submit their
documents, but no later than 5 April 2014.
Staff members on temporary assignment/secondment from
a parent duty station or HQ;
age of retirement or reaching that age by
31 December 2014 (the later will be placed against surplus
vacant posts until the retirement date);
The terms of reference for the CRP indicated in section “CRP
Organization of work”, para. 5, that “the CRP will review lists of posts and staff
members provided by Human Resources Section where staffing by section,
occupational group/functional title, category and level is greater than the proposed
number of posts in the revised Missions structure”.
From this document which was available to all the staff members,
including the Applicant, it was clear that all staff on FTAs were subject to review
by the CRP and they were requested, if not done yet, to submit their PHPs and
performance appraisal reports no later than 5 April 2014.
In her application, the Applicant stated that (emphasis in original):
In late March 2014, the Applicant became aware that
the Administration had sent out emails to all Civil Affairs Officers,
informing them of the Comparative Review Exercise and
requesting them to submit various documentation including their
PHP’s.
On 29 March 2014, as the Applicant had not received such
an e-mail, she contacted … Chief of Human Resources Office
[CHRO], MINUSTAH, requesting an update on when she would
be formally notified of the Comparative Review Exercise and
the necessity to submit documentation. On the same day, [CHRO]
responded by e-mail stating that “Your post which you are
encumbering is not part of the Civil Affairs Section. It belongs to
the Regional Coordination Unit which falls under the SRSG. If SM
did not receive any email from me then he/she will not be part of
the CPR [Comparative Review] review”. …
As noted above, this came as a complete surprise to the
Applicant as she was never aware or indeed informed that she was
not considered a Civil Affairs Officer.
On 3 April 2014, the Applicant contacted … Director of
Mission Support [DMS], highlighting her concerns and stating that
in her understanding she retained her position within Civil Affairs
and therefore requesting a review of the decision. …
On 4 April 2014, [DMS] replied to the Applicant
referencing the need for the process to be transparent and fair.
However, no mention was made to the Applicant and the concerns
that she raised. …
On 5 April 2014, the Applicant again sent an e-mail to
[DMS], informing him that she was well aware of the requirements
of the Competitive Review Exercise but stressing the fact that she
would not be able to compete for the Civil Affairs posts. On
the same day, the Applicant received a response to her comments
from … , Chief of Border Management [CBM]. In his response,
[CBM] stated that “the mission org. chart does not reflect your
position under Civil Affairs but under SRSG”. …
It results that the Applicant received the general information, but she did
not receive a similar email sent to the staff members from CAS regarding
the required documents for the retrenchment exercise and on 29 March 2014 she
was informed of this. Instead, following directly the instructions from the IC, she
contacted DMS and she was informed that the Mission charter reflected her
position under SRSG and not under CAS.
The Respondent indicated in his reply that the downsizing exercise for
RCU for the year 2014 involved the abolition of all five P-4 Chief Departmental
Officer posts and the downsizing exercise for CAS for year 2014 included
the abolition of seven posts within the Professional category (one P-2, three P-3,
and three P-4 posts). CAS staff members were required to go through
a comparative review exercise because the number of posts within the Section
was less than the number of currently serving staff members. The comparative
review exercise did not apply to RCU because the number of established P-4
posts in the 2013–2014 budget cycle was equal to the number of positions to be
abolished in the proposed budget cycle for 2014–2015.
The Tribunal concludes that both RCU and CAS were affected by
the retrenchment process since the number of posts in the new structure was less
that the number of serving staff members. In RCU, the number of proposed posts
in the new structure was zero (all the P-4 posts were to be abolished) whereas in
CAS the number of proposed posts in the new structure was decreased by seven
posts (one P-2, three P-3, and three P-4 posts), less than the current number of
staff members in CAS. Therefore, it was mandatory that all the staff members in
both of these sections were informed about the retrenchment exercise by the end
of March 2014 and be reviewed by the CRP.
In the present case, the Applicant, as a P-4 staff member serving in RCU
(which was affected by the retrenchment exercise), was to be informed about
the retrenchment exercise by the end of March 2014. The Applicant was clearly
informed on 27 March 2014 about the establishment of the panel and the review
criteria. The Tribunal concludes that MINUSTAH respected this first mandatory
obligation to inform the Applicant, respectively the Applicant’s correlative right
to be informed about the retrenchment exercise, the establishment of the panel
On 29 March 2014, the Applicant was informed by CHRO that the post
she was encumbering “is not part of CAS. It belongs to RCU, which falls under
the direct authority of the SRSG. If the [staff member] did not receive any e-mail
from [her] then he/she will not be part of the CRP review”.
Regarding the second obligation of MINUSTAH to have all the staff
members affected by the retrenchment process reviewed by the CRP, the Tribunal
concludes that it was not respected, since it was wrongly decided against
the terms of reference included in IC DMS/010/2014 that the CRP review will
include only the staff of CAS and not the five P-4 staff members of RCU, a unit
under the SRSG where all P-4 posts were to be abolished entirely. Consequently,
the right of the Applicant to be reviewed by the CRP was not respected.
The Tribunal underlines that the scope of the downsizing process was to identify
staff to be retained in the entire new mission structure and not only in one of its
sections, CAS. Consequently, the first contested decision not to include
the Applicant in the comparative review exercise is unlawful, because this
decision had the legal effect of limiting the CRP mandate only to CAS. This
breached the Applicant’s right to be reviewed by the CRP with respect to all
the remaining posts in the new mission structure.
Non-renewal of the Applicant’s FTA: expiration of appointment versus
termination of appointment for abolition of post and reduction of staff
The Tribunal notes that staff rules 9.1 and 9.4 state that the expiration of
appointment constitutes a separation from service and that a temporary or fixedterm appointment shall expire automatically and without prior notice on
the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment. Staff rules 9.6(a) and (b)
state that a termination is a separation from service initiated by the SecretaryGeneral and that separation as a result of expiration of appointment shall not be
regarded as termination. According to staff rule 9.6(c)(i), the abolition of posts or
reduction of staff are reasons for termination. It results that an expiration of
a fixed-term appointment is a reason for an ope legis separation based on
the limited duration of the contract agreed by both the employee and
the employer, while an abolition of post and reduction of staff is a reason for
a termination decision initiated unilaterally by the employer.
Further, the Tribunal notes that in case of termination for abolition of
posts and reduction of staff, according to staff rule 9.6(e), if the necessities of
service require that appointments of staff members be terminated as a result of
abolition of post or reduction of staff, and subject to the availability of suitable
posts in which their services can be effectively utilized, provided that due regard
shall be given in all cases to relative competence, integrity and length in service,
staff members shall be retained in the following order of preference: (i) staff
members holding continuing appointments; (ii) staff members recruited through
competitive examination for a career appointment serving on a two-year FTA;
and (iii) staff members holding fixed-term appointments.
All these provisions mentioned above are mandatory and must be
respected by the Organization.
As results from the uncontested facts, the Applicant has been recruited in
2005 for MINUSTAH as a Civil Affairs Officer on an FTA, which was extended
on 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2014. Between 1 and 14 July 2013, the Applicant
continued to work as a Civil Affairs Officer and, on 15 July 2013, she started to
work as a Chief Departmental Officer in a new section—Regional Coordination
Unit. On 28 January 2014, the Applicant was informed that all the P-4 posts in
RCU would be abolished. On 13 May 2014, she received the non-renewal
decision stating in relevant parts:
In line with MINUSTAH’s 2014–15 budget proposal,
the mission has completed the review of the sections affected by
the downsizing exercise, intended to effectively address evolving
As a result of the downsizing of posts in the 2014–2015
budget proposal, I regret to inform you that your fixed-term
appointment with MINUSTAH which is expiring on 30 June 2014
will not be extended any further. In this regard, your separation
from the Organization will be initiated and Human Resources
Section will forward you the necessary separation package and
instructions in due course.
Kindly note that the Field Personnel Division (FPD) in
the Department of Field Support (DFS) at UN Headquarters and
MINUSTAH will continue to explore possibilities for
the reassignment of staff members who wish to continue their
services with the United Nations either through (a) selection from
the Field Central Review Body (FCRB) roster; or (b) internal
placement within MINUSTAH considering that staff have gone
through the standardized selection process. Therefore, in the event
that you are selected through the FCRB roster or internally
reassigned to a position within MINUSTAH by COB 30 June
2014, your separation from the Organization will no longer be
If you are not yet on the FCRB roster, you are strongly
encouraged to apply to the generic job openings posted on Galaxy
or Inspire for which you ore qualified. You are also strongly
encouraged to apply to positions in other UN entities, in HQ or in
the field which match your profile.
The Tribunal notes that as results from the Applicant’s Letter of
Appointment, her appointment for a fixed-term of one year was to expire on
30 June 2014. Moreover, all the P-4 posts in RCU, including the Applicant’s post,
were to be abolished from 1 July 2014 and in these circumstances MINUSTAH
had two legal options: to separate the Applicant as a result of the expiration of her
FTA or to terminate the Applicant’s contract based on the fact that the post was to
The non-renewal decision issued by MINUSTAH on 13 May 2014
constitutes a separation decision based on the expiration of the contract and not
a termination decision, as confirmed by the Respondent in his reply. The fact that
the date of expiration of the Applicant’s contract—30 June 2014—agreed by
the parties on 1 July 2013, was to coincide with the abolition of the post as
a consequence of the restricted budget for MINUSTAH approved by the General
Assembly, cannot change the legal nature of the contested decision.
The Applicant was well aware both that her contract was to expire on
30 June 2014 and that the post was to be abolished next day. Following
the notification of the contested decision on 13 May 2014 she was also well aware
that MINUSTAH had decided to let her contract expire.
The Tribunal concludes that the separation decision is lawful since
a fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy for renewal and it was
not possible to extend the Applicant’s contract for a post which was to be
abolished at the expiration of her FTA. The provisions of secs. 1 and 4.1 of
ST/AI/2013/1 were correctly applied in the present case.
In Hersh 2014-UNAT-433-Corr.1, the Appeals Tribunal stated:
Both the Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal of
the International Labour Organization have held that it is well
settled jurisprudence that “an international organization necessarily
has 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”. [Footnote: Pacheco v. SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2013-UNAT-281,
para. 22]
The downsizing process in MINUSTAH was effective, real, and genuine,
affecting all the P-4 posts from RCU and other posts in CAS. The Applicant was
not personally targeted by this process.
The Applicant requested 24 months’ net base salary as compensation for
the manifestly unlawful decision to exclude her from the comparative review
exercise and the resulting non-renewal of her contract.
The Applicant in the present case was holding a one-year FTA and, as
established above, she had the right to participate in the comparative review
process, which was not respected by MINUSTAH. The Tribunal will further
analyze the legal implications of this unlawful decision, including whether
the Applicant is entitled to compensation.
The Tribunal considers that, as results from paras. 8 and 9 of IC
DMS/006/2014, the staff members affected by the downsizing process in
MINUSTAH had the right to be reviewed by the CRP based on the criteria in
art. 101, para. 3 of the United Nations Charter. However, these staff members had
no right to be recommended/selected for retention on another available post in
the new structure of the Mission following the mandatory order of preference
from staff rule 9.6(e) after 1 July 2014 or for this recommendation to be
automatically approved by FPD/DFS. The CRP had a similar function with
the function of an assessment panel established in accordance with ST/AI/2010/3
and the jurisprudence of both Tribunals established that a staff member has
the right to be fully and fairly considered for a post, but has no right to be
recommended by the panel and/or selected for the post. In the present case,
the Applicant had only the right to be included in the review and to be assessed by
the CRP, but she had no right to be recommended to be retained and/or to be
retained for another post.
Consequently, even if the Applicant would have been reviewed by
the CRP, the panel had full discretion to recommend the staff members to be
retained in the new structure and the Applicant had no right to be recommended to
be retained on a different post in the new structure starting from 1 July 2014 or for
such a recommendation to be approved by the Field Personnel Division.
Moreover, the provisions of rule 9.6(c) are applicable only when
the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled: (i) the staff member’s contract
is terminated for abolition of posts and reduction of staff; and (ii) when suitable
posts in which the staff member(s) services can be effectively utilized are
available. These provisions cannot be extended and/or invoked in other cases of
separation as in the present case (expiration of an FTA).
The unlawful decision not to include the Applicant in the comparative
review process was not followed by a termination decision. The Tribunal
concluded that the Applicant’s contract expired and it was not terminated.
Therefore staff rule 9.6(c) was not applicable in the Applicant’s case.
Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2013/1 states that a renewal of appointment may be
for service in the same position or upon selection for a different position.
Regarding the first option, renewal of an appointment is possible only on
the same position. In the present case, it was not possible since the Applicant’s
post was to be abolished from 1 July 2014 and thus she could not be renewed on
Regarding the second option, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that
the Applicant applied and was considered for three positions. She was not
selected for two P-4 positions, she was deemed ineligible for the P-5 position, and
her appointment was limited to service with the Mission as she was not cleared by
the Field Central Review Body. The Tribunal notes that these non-selection
decisions were not contested by the Applicant.
The Appeals Tribunal has stated in Antaki 2010-UNAT-095 that “not
every violation will necessarily lead to an award of compensation. Compensation
may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually
suffered damages”. In the present case, the Tribunal concludes that the unlawful
decision not to include the Applicant in the comparative review process had no
legal effects on her contractual status since the contract expired and was not
terminated. Taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the case, no
prejudice was caused by the decision not to include the Applicant in
the comparative review, and the Applicant had no expectancy of renewal of her
fixed-term appointment.
In the light of the above the Tribunal DECIDES:
Dated this 7th day of January 2016
Entered in the Register on this 7th day of January 2016
undt-2016-002.pdf (PDF, 411 Ko)
comparative decision tribunal process posts mission appointment section applicant review judgment members minustah staff within
Ce fichier a été mis en ligne par un utilisateur du site. Identifiant unique du document: 00400415.