Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNDT/2014/044

UNDT/2014/044, Lennard

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the selected candidates, which were endorsed by the Central Review Board, were graded above the Applicant and that there was no merit to his claim of impropriety regarding the selection process which was lawful and was not tainted by bias or other improper considerations. Participation of former incumbent in selection process: The Hiring Manager’s Manual does not limit an incumbent’s involvement with regard to the selection of his or her successor for a post that has already been vacated. Therefore his presence on the interview panel did not affect any of the Applicant’s rights. Evaluation criteria: In the present case, the vacancy announcement identified the method by which each candidate was to be evaluated for the job openings. There is no reference to the Applicant’s argument that supporting documentation of any kind could, should or was going to be used as part of the assessment method of the qualified candidates under consideration. While it may be helpful for an interview panel to take a staff member’s performance appraisal into consideration when conducting its assessment, the panel’s decision not to do so did not constitute a breach of any procedural requirement nor does it support any inference or conclusion that failure to do so constituted a material irregularity or was unfair to the Applicant.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant appealed his non-selection, and the selection of another candidate for two job openings on the grounds that: the selection process breached the applicable rules; the Hiring Manager, as a former incumbent of the post should not have been part of the interview panel; and the Applicant’s electronic appraisal system (“ePasâ€) reports were not taken into account.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

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