2022-UNAT-1218, Secretary-General

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT disagreed and reversed the UNDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to effectively perform the tasks of an identified post.  The WMO Secretary-General’s appeal is thus upheld, and the UNDT Judgment is reversed.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The post of a staff member who held a permanent appointment was slated for abolition following a restructuring exercise. After receiving such notice, the staff member applied for ten posts at the Organization. However, all of the ten posts, except for one, were unrelated to his previous work experience. He was invited for an initial assessment for the one post that was related to his previous experience to test his technical knowledge. However, he did not succeed and did not go on to the next level of the recruitment, which was the interview. He subsequently filed an application with the UNDT challenging the decision of the Administration to abolish his post without making good faith efforts to place him in a suitable alternative post. The UNDT found the decision to terminate his permanent appointment unlawful on account that the Administration had failed to consider his application for the one post that he was tested for on a preferred non-competitive basis.

Legal Principle(s)

Priority consideration for a job opening is conditioned upon an eligible staff member having the relative competence and skills to perform such job.

Outcome
Appeal granted
Outcome Extra Text

The WMO Secretary-General's appeal is granted, and the UNDT Judgment is reversed.

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