Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2011/159

UNDT/2011/159, Charles

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNDT held that the decision not to select the Applicant was appropriately reviewed by the JAB panel and therefore proper. UNDT held that the requirement of relevant experience was appropriate and necessary for this particular vacancy and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. UNDT held that the JAB panel addressed the appropriate legal principles and that, in applying those princples to the facts of the case, it asked the correct questions and considered the appropriate authorities. UNDT held that the Applicant failed to satisfy it that there was any material irregularity in the proceedings before the JAB, such as to call into question its conclusions. UNDT held that there was no substance in the Applicant’s allegation that there was an actual or perceived conflict of interest in the selection process. UNDT held that the copying of the two legal officers into certain correspondence was standard practice within the unit. UNDT held that the application failed and dismissed it in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested the Organization’s alleged failure to grant him full and fair consideration for a post. He alleged that, had he been given such consideration and been subject to a competency-based interview, he would have had a fair and equal chance of satisfying the selection panel of his ability to perform the duties in question.

Legal Principle(s)

Procedural fairness is an important principle in employment relations designed to ensure transparency in the decision-making process. It is also intended to guard against the manipulation of selection criteria and or, alternatively, the imposition of criteria that are not truly job-related in order to confer an unfair advantage on a favoured candidate.

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

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
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type