�山����

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant’s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to investigate her complaint under ST/SGB/2008/5 against the Chief, Languages Services (“Chief LS”), and fifteen of her colleagues and, following the investigation against two individuals, the decision to take managerial action against only one of the staff members she had complained about.; Receivability; Since the Applicant failed to request timely management evaluation of the decision not to investigate her complaint against the Chief, LS, and fifteen other staff members,; notified to her on 30 March 2017, these claims in...

Noting that there is nothing in the strict interpretation of section 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 to exclude a series of discrete acts performed by more than a single individual from constituting prohibited conduct for which the Organization bears responsibility, the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s allegations of institutionally enabled, or tolerated, harassment did not relate to one off incidents. Under ST/SGB/2008/5, the ES’s duty was to examine the complaint in its entirety to see whether it raised issues of prohibited conduct to which the Applicant may have still been suffering from. Instead...

The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. UNDT/2019/019 in its reconsideration of the Applicant’s claim. The ABCC received and considered a medical opinion of the medical doctor of MSD, who reviewed medical reports submitted by the Applicant along with his prior medical history. While the Applicant made allegations of improper considerations, he did not provide any supporting evidence and these allegations are without merit.

The Applicant did not mention a relevant experience in his personal history profile. Although the Applicant disagreed with the hiring manager’s evaluation of the relevance of his experience, he failed to establish that the hiring manager’s assessment was unreasonable. The hiring manager did not introduce additional criteria to evaluate the job candidates. The minimum work experience requirements for the position were not an unlawful deviation from the generic job profile for the position or unduly restrictive. The hiring manager’s decision to not administer a written test was within his...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant’s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant’s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”)...

Any changes to the Applicant’s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office’s work. The Applicant’s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.

In the preliminary assessment of the complaint, the responsible official correctly reviewed not only the Applicant’s allegations but also the evidence he provided. The responsible official reasonably (a) found no grounds to believe that the subject of the complaint had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct, and (b) concluded that the evidence did not reveal a pattern of harassment. No evidence showed that the authority to review the complaint had been unlawfully delegated or any other procedural irregularity. While the responsible official could have better spelled out the managerial measures...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...