Ãå±±½ûµØ

2014-UNAT-416

2014-UNAT-416, Charles

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-UNAT-416. UNAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. UNAT held that it was not open to UNDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3. UNAT held that there was no violation of Mr Charles’ due process rights and set aside the award of damages in his favour. UNAT upheld the appeals by the Secretary-General, dismissed the cross-appeals by Mr Charles, and vacated the UNDT judgments.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNDT judgment: The Applicant presented two applications contesting the decisions not to select him for the posts of Procurement Officer (Team Leader), Field Supply Team, at the P-4 level and of Procurement Officer (Operations) at the P-4 level, respectively. In judgment No. UNDT/2013/040, UNDT granted the application in part and awarded compensation for the breach of his rights and resultant harm. UNDT held that the automatic appointment of a rostered candidate without a selection process that afforded other candidates full and fair consideration was contrary to the requirements of Article 101.3 of the Ãå±±½ûµØCharter and Staff Regulation 4.2 and allowed rostered candidates to be treated as privileged. UNDT held that ST/AI/2010/3 does not provide for priority consideration of rostered candidates. UNDT found that the Applicant had been deprived of his rights to full and fair consideration and suffered some harm. UNDT held that, since the Applicant was only one of the 153 candidates whose names were released to the hiring manager, it would be speculative to attempt an estimate of his chances of success. UNDT dismissed allegations of bias and discrimination and rejected the Applicant’s claim that the late response to his request for management evaluation caused him harm. In judgment No. UNDT/2013/041, UNDT granted the application in part and awarded the Applicant compensation for the breach of his rights and resultant harm. UNDT noted that the parties’ submissions in this case in large part repeat their submissions in Case No. UNDT/NY/2013/005, which was disposed of by UNDT in judgment No. UNDT/2013/040 and that the two cases were also similar with respect to the legal and factual issues. UNDT found that, for the reasons stated in judgment No. UNDT/2013/040, the Secretary-General’s interpretation of ST/AI/2010/3 was mistaken and that by not giving any consideration to the Applicant’s candidacy for the job opening, he had violated the Applicant’s rights. UNDT dismissed the Applicant’s claims regarding the delayed response to his management evaluation request.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to Section 9.4 of ST/AI/2010/3, the head of a department/office has the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. There is no requirement in Section 9. 4 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates.

Outcome
Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Charles
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type