Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2012/008

UNDT/2012/008, Pacheco

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Organization of work and discretion of the Secretary-General: The Secretary-General has wide discretion in the organization of work. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own views to that of the Secretary-General on how to organize work and meet operational needs. Decisions in this sphere may be set aside only on limited grounds, for example if the competent authorities breached procedural rules, or if discretion was exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or illegal manner.Eligibility for consideration for conversion to permanent appointment: Pursuant to provisional staff Rules13.4 (b), only staff members who held 100-series fixed-term appointments on or before 30 June 2009 could be eligible for consideration for a permanent appointment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision to abolish her post and separate her from service with effect from 30 April 2010. Her main contention is that the abolition of her post was motivated by extraneous factors and aimed at getting rid of her, rather than based on the genuine needs of the Organization. The Tribunal concluded that it was not presented with evidence that persuaded it that the abolition of the Applicant’s post was manifestly unreasonable, motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove her from the office. The Tribunal also found that in the Applicant’s case, the Respondent was not obliged to make a good faith effort to find an alternative suitable post for her and that she was not eligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment since she only held 200-series appointments before 30 June 2009.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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
Pacheco
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type