¹ú²úAV

Lawfulness of non-renewal decision: The Tribunal held that the instructions from UNHQ about the need for UNMIL to cut its budget by downsizing provided ample justification for the restructuring of the Mission which included the down-grading of a number of posts, including that encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the restructuring were genuine. Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was clear on its face that it was due to budget cuts and downsizing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reference to the abolition of the Applicant’s post was a technical error that did not impact on the Applicant’s rights and the non-renewal decision cannot be impugned on this ground. Reclassification: The Tribunal held that the classification request was commenced in accordance with section 1 of ST/AI/1998/9 as the duties and responsibilities of the post had changed substantially due to restructuring within an office and/or a General Assembly resolution. The Tribunal found that by the time the classification request was made on 22 August 2014, the Applicant’s fixed-term contract had expired. Although he was held on a GTA funded post pending the outcome of the management evaluation of the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment, he was no longer an incumbent of the post to which he had been appointed. The Tribunal concluded that since the Applicant was no longer the incumbent of the post at the time of the classification request there was no lawful requirement for him to have been informed of the outcome and that the ST/AI did not require the administration to renew the Applicant’s appointment pending the classification decision. As the Applicant was not the incumbent of the post at the time of the decision he also had no right of appeal against the classification decision.