UNDT/2022/109, Scheibner Mesas
The fact that the Applicant accepted a lower level post did not make his application moot. The Administration failed to fulfil its obligation to offer available positions at the same level of the abolished post. The Applicant sustained and continues to sustain a relevant loss of salary because the Administration failed to make good faith efforts to place him in one of the positions that he applied to at the P-5 level, positions for which he was duly qualified. The Administration also failed to meet its obligation to reassign the Applicant as a matter or priority to another post matching his abilities and grade. Allowing the Administration to bypass its obligation towards continuing appointment holders facing abolition of posts by offering any available post at a lower level without considering their pending applications at their level would be absurd and contrary to the Appeals Tribunal’s intention in Timothy, given thatreassignment is not a means to demote a staff member losing his/her position.
The Applicant challenged the Respondent's decision to terminate his continuing appointment following the abolition of the post he encumbered.
The Organization shall not terminate the appointment of a staff member whose post has been abolished, at least if he or she holds an appointment of indeterminate duration, without first taking suitable steps to find him/her alternative employment. In other terms, compliance with the recalled rule is relevant for the lawfulness of the termination decision.