UNDT/2020/082

UNDT/2020/082, Machoka

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The alleged “[c]onstructive dismissal, harassment and abuse of authority” by the Assistant Secretary-General of the Bureau for Management Service at the United Nations Development Programme (“the ASG” and “BMS/UNDP”), which she defines as the decision “to divest her of her core functions as Chief of the Directorate”

Legal Principle(s)

Staff regulation 1.2(c) bestows upon the Secretary-General, as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization under art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, a broad latitude of discretion in how to organize and plan the work of its staff as “[s]taff 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”. This discretion is complemented, in accordance with staff rule 1.2(a), by the duty of staff to adhere to their supervisors’ directions and instructions, which, however, must be properly issued. The Dispute Tribunal’s judicial review is limited a It is trite law that the Administration has broad discretion to reorganize its operations and departments to meet changing needs and economic realities. Within the limits of the Administration’s managerial authority, the assignments of a staff member, who encumbers a specific post, may, therefore, be changed, and also divested—the question is where to draw the line before such change/divesture becomes an inappropriate administrative act in the given circumstances. When claiming ulterior motives, the onus of proof is on the Applicant in accordance with the consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal.

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
Machoka
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type