�山����

The Appeals Tribunal has generally held that the discretion of authority of the Administration is not unfettered. As the Appeals Tribunal stated in its seminal judgment in Sanwidi 2010-UNAT-084, at para. 40, “when judging the validity of the exercise of discretionary authority, … the Dispute Tribunal determines if the decision is legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate”. This means that the Tribunal “can consider whether relevant matters have been ignored and irrelevant matters considered, and also examine whether the decision is absurd or perverse”. The Appeals Tribunal, however, underlined that “it is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal to consider the correctness of the choice made by the Secretary‑General amongst the various courses of action open to him” or otherwise “substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary‑General” (see Sanwidi, para. 40). In this regard, “the Dispute Tribunal is not conducting a ‘merit-based review, but a judicial review’” explaining that a “[j]udicial review is more concerned with examining how the decision-maker reached the impugned decision and not the merits of the decision-maker’s decision” (see Sanwidi, para. 42). Among the circumstances to consider when assessing the Administration’s exercise of its discretion, the Appeals Tribunal stated “[t]here can be no exhaustive list of the applicable legal principles in administrative law, but unfairness, unreasonableness, illegality, irrationality, procedural irregularity, bias, capriciousness, arbitrariness and lack of proportionality are some of the grounds on which tribunals may for good reason interfere with the exercise of administrative discretion” (see Sanwidi, para. 38). As the Chief Administrative Office of the Secretariat and appointed by the General Assembly under art. 97 of the United Nations Charter, the Secretary-General must follow and implement decisions of the General Assembly that require him to do so (see also sec. 2.1(a) of ST/SGB/2015/3 (Organization of the Secretariat of the United Nations). In line herewith, the Appeals Tribunal has affirmed the superiority of legal acts of the General Assembly to those of the Secretary-General in, for instance, Villamoran 2011/UNDT/126, para. 29, and Al-Shakour 2021-UNAT-1107, para. 49. Also, pursuant to art. 101.1 of the United Nations Charter, staff members of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary-General, who as the Chief Administrative Officer also directs their work. In this regard, the General Assembly has stipulated in staff regulation 1.2(c) that “[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”. Regarding DGACM, it follows from sec. 3 of ST/SGB/2021/3 (Organization of the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management) and sec. 6 of ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) that the USG is charged with the overall responsibility of managing the work of the Department and its staff members. This therefore also includes deciding the specific workload standards and work output requirements. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that albeit in a different context, the Appeals Tribunal in Simmons 2016-UNAT-624 held that “[t]he jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal has been that the Administration has the power to restructure and reorganize its units and its departments to lend to greater efficiency” (subsequently affirmed in Sarieddine 2018-UNAT-852). Staff regulation 8.1(a) and ST/SGB/274 impose a duty on the Administration to establish a staff representative body and undertake meaningful consultations with affected staff in certain particular circumstances. The focus of staff regulation 8.1(a) is, henceforth, on the general application and process concerning preparation and promulgation of “human resources policies” concerning “staff welfare” as explicitly stated at the end of the provision by stipulating the work “other”. Similarly, the consultative process set out in ST/SGB/274 explicitly concerns the general application of “regulations, rules and policies” regarding “staff welfare, working conditions and efficiency” at “the departmental and office level”.