UNDT/2010/063

UNDT/2010/063, Weiler

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The apportionment of points was not done fairly or objectively in two respects:- Experience: logically, either both the Applicant and the selected candidate should have received the maximum 50 points or the Applicant should have been given more than the selected candidate.- Languages: the Applicant’s had five less points than the selected candidate. An objective evaluation would have given her more. Outcome: The Tribunal found that evaluation of the Applicant’s candidacy for the concerned position was not carried out in a full and fair manner and awarded her compensation in the amount of 4 months of her final net base salary.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant applied for a promotion. A minimum of eight years of relevant experience, as well as “very good ability to read, write and speak English and French or Spanish” was required, “knowledge of the third language highly desirable”. The Applicant was shortlisted and interviewed, but not selected. The Applicant had over twenty years of relevant experience; English was her mother tongue, she was proficient in French and had a 山official Certificate of Proficiency in Spanish. The selected candidate had nine years of relevant experience, was fluent in English and French and had no certificate proving her knowledge of Spanish. As per the written evaluations of the candidates (including a narrative section and a numerical rating of each qualification), both the Applicant and the selected candidate were given 20 points, out of a maximum of 50, for experience. The Applicant was given 20 points for languages; her Spanish was qualified as very limited. The successful candidate, described as having limited Spanish, had 25. The interviewing panel stated some negative comments on the Applicant’s skills. The Applicant’s total score was 80 points, the selected candidate’s 85.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Weiler
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type