¹ú²úAV

Downsizing: The Tribunal found that the decision to cut the Applicant’s post and to not renew her appointment beyond its expiry was made in the context of the downsizing of the Mission. It was a rational decision made in light of the needs of the Organization. It was made and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the information circulars. It was, with the exception of the short delay in conveying the actual decision, procedurally regular and lawful.Comparative review process: The Tribunal concluded noted that the functional title of the Applicant’s post did not match the functions she actually performed and that the Administration correctly placed her in the occupational group of administrative assistant when it came to deciding if her post was to be subject to a comparative review. Since she encumbered the sole administrative post in the Engineering Section, a comparative review process was not required. The Applicant was given full and fair notice and the opportunity to express her interest in suitable vacant posts. The implementation of the decision was procedurally correct.