Court rejects manager’s challenge to reassignment

Reykjavik District Court has dismissed a department director’s challenge to her reassignment at the National Audit Office, ruling that it fell within the auditor general’s management authority. mbl.is reported that the court rejected both her request to overturn the decision and her claim that it was unlawful. The ruling was issued the previous day, and no legal costs were awarded.

The woman had worked at the National Audit Office since 2019 as director of its administration and legal affairs department. In a letter dated July 28, 2025, she was told she would become director of a new support department from October 1. Her salary and other employment terms would remain unchanged.

She argued that the new role was unrelated to her previous work and lower in status. It involved managing fewer employees, and she said her education and experience would be less relevant. Another employee had been temporarily appointed to her former position. She also believed the reassignment was linked to her criticism of the office’s management and a meeting with the speaker of parliament in April 2025 to discuss personnel matters at the office.

The National Audit Office said the decision was based on professional and operational considerations. Reorganization plans presented to managers early in 2025 included merging departments and reducing the number of department directors. The office had initially planned to advertise the new support department role, but the auditor general decided to assign it to her instead.

In court, the auditor general cited uncertainty about when she and other employees would return from leave. He also said her experience and knowledge of the office’s internal operations would be useful in leading the new department. She had been on leave since May 2025 and was not working in the support department role while the case was being heard.

The court said changes to public employees’ duties and areas of responsibility are permitted if they are based on legitimate considerations and are no more burdensome than necessary. It found that the reassignment was intended to ensure the office operated efficiently and met its objectives.

The court did not consider it unreasonable to appoint her to lead a department with fewer employees than her former one. The role was still a management position, and the court found no indication that her management authority had been reduced. The absence of written records of the auditor general’s assessment was not decisive.

The court noted that there had been no communication between the woman and the auditor general from the time she went on leave in May until she was notified of the reassignment in July. It described the circumstances as unusual and said opportunities for discussion and consultation had been limited, though it would have been preferable to try to establish communication.