����AV

Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under “g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months” is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant’s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (“shall”) to be retained in service. Reasons for the decision: The decision to separate the Applicant as a result of the abolition of her post at the G-4 level due to a lack of funds, and the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term contract for another two years was unlawful since the proffered reason (i.e. lack of funds in the OAI account) was not supported by evidence. Since the Applicant's post was no longer funded since November 2014 from the OIA account, the lack of funds in OIA was not relevant and could not constitute a reason for the abolition of the Applicant’s post in September 2016. OIOS published a vacancy announcement for a temporary position of “Team Assistant” at the G-4 level which was limited to 364 days, with responsibilities and competencies similar to the ones performed by the Applicant. The Tribunal held that OIOS had sufficient additional available funds for up to one year for a temporary post in a different unit with similar functions as the post abolished in October 2016 and it appears that its funding was not approved until the next budget period, on 30 June 2017. These funds, if available in October 2016, could have been used to continue the funding of the Applicant’s post, in case no other funds were available, or the Applicant could have been reassigned to this new post. The Organization's obligations under staff rule 9.6(e): As a result of the abolition of the Applicant’s post, pursuant to staff rule 9.6 (c)(i) and staff rule 9.6(e)(iii), the Applicant was to be offered, without being subject to a selection process, any available post, including new posts either on a one-year or two-year fixed-term or a temporary contract, before selecting and appointing another staff member, based on the priority principle which was not respected by the Organization. The Administration did not comply with its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(iii) and 9.6(f) and sec. 11.1(b) of ST/AI/2010/3 to retain the Applicant and her correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G-4) or at a lower level in in New York. Regarding the decision consisting in the refusal to re-assign the Applicant under zero incumbency for two months to the CTED, where she had been selected for a short-term position until 31 December 2016, the Tribunal considers that this decision, which was taken without the mandatory provisions of staff rule 9.6(e)(iii) and 9.6(f) and sec. 11.1(b) of ST/AI/2010/3 being observed and applied, in light of the above considerations, is also unlawful because it breached the Applicant’s right to be reassigned on a non-competitive basis to any available suitable vacant post, under a fixed-term or temporary appointment, or to any other post for which she was competitively selected and that she would preferably accept. Legitimate expectation of renewal: Based on the written confirmation that her post, which existed in October 2016, would be funded until October 2018, the Applicant had a legitimate expectancy for her two-year fixed-term contract to be renewed after 28 October 2016.