UNDT/2012/118

UNDT/2012/118, Adundo, et al.

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The proposed competitive process was necessitated by the ending of funding for the Capital Master Plan (“CMP”), a large-scale long-term renovation of the United Nations Headquarters Complex in New York. According to the Respondent, the Applicants’ posts are funded through CMP; the Applicants dispute this. The main issue in this case is whether the contested decision to subject the Applicants to the ad hoc competitive process test is lawful. The Tribunal found that the ad hoc competitive process announced in April 2012 was unlawful and ordered rescission of the decision to carry it out.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicants, a group of 25 Security Officers in New York, filed an application contesting the administrative decision requiring them, as a condition for further employment or selection for retrenchment or renewal, to undergo an ad hoc competitive process that includes a mandatory competency test.

Legal Principle(s)

Retrenchment, restructuring: In cases of bona fide retrenchment exercises, the Respondent has a wide, but not unfettered, discretion in its implementation, in which the Tribunal would not readily intervene. However, the circumstances in this case are exceptional. Whilst the Administration has to take into account operational requirements and the need for the efficient operation of the Organization, it must also establish fair and reasonable procedures, including fair and objective criteria, and its decisions must be supported by the established facts.Selection of S-1 and S-2 level staff: There are no rules in the Organization on selections for S-1 and S-2 level positions. No administrative instruction has been promulgated regarding the selection of staff up to the S-2 level despite earlier indications that such legislation would be adopted.Consultations: Whilst it is recognised that an employer may restructure or reorganise its workforce for legitimate reasons and based on its operational requirements, fair, reasonable, and equitable procedures must be followed. This includes a full and meaningful consultation process to ensure that staff members have a say in the process, that they receive proper notice, and that their interests are taken into consideration.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Adundo, et al.
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories