�山����

The Administration, contrary to its own policies, took into account the Applicant’s functional title only without considering his actual functions vis-à-vis the other P-4 posts in the JAOC. By neglecting to look beyond the Applicant’s functional title, the Administration unlawfully determined that the Applicant would be subject to a dry-cut. Significantly, the Applicant held a continuing appointment. Thus, applying the UNMIL Guidelines to the present case, the Applicant should have been automatically retained since there were, at the time of this application, other P-4 staff members in his section performing exactly the same duties as the Applicant who did not hold continuing appointments. For example, there was a P-4 staff member who was on a temporary appointment whose appointment was extended beyond 30 June 2016. The fact that the Applicant was terminated, while this temporary staff member remained, was a violation of the mission’s own Guidelines dealing with its subject downsizing exercise. There was, at the time of this filing, a staff member in the JAOC on a temporary contract who was performing the same functions as the Applicant. These functions were, indeed, the same or substantially similar such that he should have been retained over the staff member on the temporary appointment. It defied logic that the temporary P-4 staff member who was in the JAOC was performing functions of a post “in which [the Applicant’s] services can[not] be effectively utilized”. The Applicant had been continuously in the employ of the Organization since 2001 and had much experience and expertise relevant to the work of the Organization in general and more specifically that of the JAOC, which in the first instance led to his appointment in the JAOC. The burden of proof was on the Respondent to prove his good faith efforts to reassign the Applicant. The Respondent did not meet his burden.