Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal was satisfied that the relevant rules were followed and found that the Applicant failed to show evidence that the decision was based on extraneous factors. It concluded that the Applicant was given full and fair consideration and rejected the application. Written test: Where an Applicant successfully passed an anonymous written test, but is subsequently eliminated at the stage of the interview, the question of who should have designed and corrected the written test in a selection process is not determinant for the outcome of the selection process vis-à-vis the Applicant. Any...

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process...

The hiring manager for the contested position had determined that the Applicant did not fully meet the work experience requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal did not consider that the assessment of the hiring manager that the Applicant had not provided evidence of the relevant work experience was clearly erroneous or unreasonable so as to constitute an error of fact. In addition, after considering ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) and the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System, the Tribunal found that there was no error of law when the hiring manager conducted...

Lawfulness of competency-based interview: On the basis of the context and requirements of the Hiring Manager’s Manual and the Inspira Recruiter’s Manual, the Tribunal interpreted section 1(c) of ST/AI/2010/3 as requiring that an assessment panel should normally have three members that must include a female and two subject matter experts. Given this interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the Panel was not properly constituted as it did not have two subject matter experts. The Tribunal accepted that in evaluating candidates for selection there is inevitably some overlap of the competencies...

The Tribunal was unable to conclude that the presumption of regularity in the selection process had been rebutted by the Applicant. There was nothing to suggest that the Respondent was motivated by any improper factors in selecting a candidate other than the Applicant. The Applicant did not, even on a preponderance of evidence, establish that the selection process was not fair. The Tribunal could not conclude that the Applicant was subjected to any discrimination or that the selection exercise was tainted.

The UNDT found the application irreceivable in respect of one position due to the Applicant’s failure to file a request for management evaluation within the applicable time limit. With respect to the remaining three posts, the Tribunal found that the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services) was unlawful, and that the other two selection decisions were not. Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of Chief of Section (Procurement of Services), set the amount of alternative...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was not renewed because contrary to its claims, the UNMIL Administration did not follow proper procedures in determining whether he should be reassigned to the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant was not given full and fair consideration for the new D-1 position in the office of the D/SRSG Rule of Law and that the guidance provided in the Secretary-General’s report and the counsel of the General Assembly were ignored. Due process – No comparative review or any review...

Where a member of an assessment panel is conflicted, s/he cannot take part in the selection process. It is irrelevant for the outcome of the present case, that the Head, PMCS, and the Director, DESS, confirmed in their evidence to the Tribunal that they did not feel any bias or resentment against the Applicant. Indeed, a subjective feeling is irrelevant and the question of impartiality or bias has to be analysed from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer. It is also irrelevant whether the Applicant had a subjective feeling that one or more of the Panel members were biased...