�山����

UNAT first agreed with the UNDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, UNAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member’s appointment. The staff member’s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a “dry cut.” A “dry cut” happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political affairs officers in his unit. The Tribunal disagreed and explained that the post that the staff member occupied was budgeted for and located in CPU, even if he was temporarily reassigned to OJSR. Given that the staff member’s post was unique in CPU, he was not entitled to a CRP. The Tribunal distinguished between post and position. UNAT explained that the staff member occupied a post in CPU. It was the CPU post that was identified for funding in the previous budget. Although he was reassigned to the position of Political Affairs Officer, he continued to encumber the same CPU post. In other words, the funding for the Political Affairs Officer position came from the budgeted Child Protection Officer post. Regarding the staff member’s argument that he was loaned to OJSR and therefore his post should have been entitled to a CRP, the Tribunal dismissed the claim finding that “loans” generally refer to inter-agency transfers whereas in this case the staff member was laterally moved to a different position at the same level within the same department. Finding no error in the UNDT Judgment that the staff member’s post was indeed unique and therefore eligible for a “dry cut”, UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment below.