2025-UNAT-1536, Milunka Tadic
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the Administration’s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration’s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The UNAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member’s post. The UNAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.
The UNAT found that the former staff member’s dissatisfaction with the UNDT’s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not constitute a valid ground to claim that the UNDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or that the UNDT erred in concluding that there was no evidence of ulterior motive or bias in the contested decision.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Office for Project Services contested the Administration’s decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment as a result of the abolishment of her post due to a restructuring exercise.
In Judgment No. UNDT/2023/144 the UNDT dismissed the application.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The presumption of regularity of administrative decisions is not only a matter of proof, but a legal necessity for the proper functioning of public services. By enjoying that presumption, administrative decisions become enforceable unless and until such time that it is decided (i) to suspend their action, or (ii) to rescind them.
If administrative decisions are not presumed regular, the Administration will not be able to execute them promptly, hence putting the smooth and continuous functioning of the public service at risk.
Unreasonableness could be found to occur when the finding of fact is unsupported by the evidence, or when it is established on excessive inferences, and the burden is on the appellant to show such error exists.
The presumption of regularity continues to apply even when the Administration faces internal structural challenges, which is without prejudice to the staff member to rebut the presumption by providing clear and convincing evidence that she was not given full and fair consideration.
Although the Administration enjoys wide discretion in organizing its internal structure as it deems appropriate, it still has a duty to act fairly, justly, and transparently in dealing with staff members, and the burden is the staff member to disprove.
The Organization’s legal framework does not place the Administration under an obligation to consult with every individual staff member affected by a restructuring exercise and consultation is not required as a matter of law, prior to the abolition of a post.