UNDT/2017/067, Nakase
The Tribunal held that the uncontested evidence before it was that the General-Assembly endorsed the Secretary-General’s recommendation for the abolishment of 80 Language Assistant posts, including the one encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal found and held that the decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was lawful as it was a proper implementation by the Secretary-General of the General Assembly’s decision. In his submissions, the Applicant had indicated that the Organization had abolished his post, but later hired him as an Individual Consultant (IC). He contended that the purpoted abolition of his post was in fact a conversion of his fixed-term contract into an IC contract. On this claim, the Tribunal held that, in light of the General Assembly’s decision, the issue of hiring the Applicant on an IC contract was not relevant for the question of legality of abolition of his post.
MONUSCO’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment and to separate him from service on the grounds of abolition of his post.
Acts prefatory to abolition of post have no direct impact on the conditions of employment of a staff member. Acts such as determination by the Secretary-General on which posts should be submitted for abolition do not constitute decisions reviewable by the Tribunal. However, an applicant may challenge an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring once that decision has been made if it has a direct impact on his or her terms and conditions of appointment. An administrative decision taken as a result of the decision of the General Assembly is lawful and the Secretary-General cannot be held accountable for executing such a decision.