�山����

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 noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel’s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (“CRC”), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...

Nowhere in the Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualifications of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when “the appointment of an external candidate is being considered” as it is stated that in such circumstances “the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed” (emphasis added). It is further stated that a “[w]ritten test may be required” (see sec. 71). No matter what the Applicant’s status was at the time of the selection process, the fact that the UNHCR...

Nowhere in the UNHCR Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualification of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when “the appointment of an external candidate is being considered” as it is stated that in such circumstances “the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed” (emphasis added). It is further stated that a “[w]ritten test may be required” (see sec. 71). The fact that the UNHCR policies make no specific stipulations about whether skills, competencies and...

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant’s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent’s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors’ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

The Applicant’s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

While the schedule set for the written assessment was probably inconvenient for the Applicant. However, he did not even attempt to provide a reason, neither when he was notified of the assessment’s schedule nor in his application, why it was not possible for him to take the test. He simply asked for the test to be rescheduled to coincide with the working hours at his location. The reason provided by the Administration for not being able to accommodate different schedules, namely the avoidance of leaks, is fair and reasonable.Therefore, the Applicant’s decision not to participate in the...

The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel’s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not “absurd or perverse” It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation...