UNDT/2014/014, Applicant
Receivability - Mr. Wallace as a Legal Officer in MEU had the requisite delegated authority to make an exception to the Staff Rules in suspending the time limits for the Applicant to request for management evaluation as he did in the present case. The Applicant’s case was therefore held in abeyance until 30 March 2011. The Applicant, as a result, had until 30 June 2011 to file her Application which she did on 6 June 2011. Full and fair consideration - All the candidates that appear before an interview panel have the right to full and fair consideration. A candidate challenging the denial of a promotion must prove through a preponderance of the evidence any of these grounds: that the interview and selection procedures were violated; that the members of the panel were biased; that the panel discriminated against an interviewee; that relevant material was ignored or that irrelevant material was considered; and potentially other grounds depending on the unique facts of each case. The MINURCAT interview of 7 June 2010 was marred by several fatal deficiencies. The Applicant in this case has discharged her evidentiary burden of proving that she was not given full and fair consideration for placement on the FCRB roster during the 7 June 2010 MINURCAT interview. She has also established that the Expert Panel was legally required to interview candidates also being considered by MINURCAT in June 2010 but failed to do so. The Expert Panel interview of 30 March 2011 was also characterized by several shortcomings. The Tribunal is convinced that the errors highlighted by the Applicant coupled by the excessive delay in compiling the interview report vitiated the entire process. The interview report was only produced pursuant to an order of the Tribunal after the excessive delay. The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that the interview results were arranged to support the Administration’s position in this case.
On 5 June 2011, the Applicant filed this Application in which she contests “a series of non-transparent, organizational acts that have resulted in the failure, “in two years, of her Field Central Review Body (FCRB) clearance for a job that she performed for 19 months at a level appraised as “frequently exceeding performance expectations””.
N/A
The Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay the Applicant compensation of two months’ net base salary at the level she encumbered in UNMIS for the procedural errors. The Applicant is also entitled to moral damages. The Tribunal recognizes the stress caused to the Applicant by the circumstances of this case and awards USD1000 as moral damages.