2021-UNAT-1082, Kanbar
UNAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the UNDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, UNAT also found no error in the UNDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, UNAT found no error in the UNDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.
A staff member providing language services was reassigned to a different duty station within a Mission, due to operational necessity. The staff member’s contract specified that she was to provide language services throughout the area of operation of the Mission, and not just the original duty station where she was assigned. The new placement involved an additional commute of 17 km for her. She challenged the reassignment decision at the UNDT, which dismissed her application finding the contested decision lawful, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, and thus, a lawful exercise of discretion.
The Administration has the discretion to appoint, transfer and promote staff, provided that it acts fairly, justly, and transparently. The staff member has the burden of proof to show administrative wrongdoing. The Administration can reassign staff members out of operational necessity and can transfer staff members to different duty stations if allowed under the terms and conditions of employment, and provided that the action is lawful, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate. An additional commute of 17 km is not particularly burdensome and as such not a disproportionate measure by the Administration.
UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.