Ãå±±½ûµØ

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman’s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

With respect to the Applicant’s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the UNIFIL Head...

The Organization’s failure to state fully the selection criteria in the GJO constitutes a procedural error in violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The procedural error in the recruitment process did not impact the Applicant’s right to be fully and fairly considered. Her application was fully and fairly reviewed by the hiring manager and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to find that the Applicant’s experience fell short of the minimum criteria.

Upon establishing an assessment panel and conducting competency-based interviews, the general rules and directives pertaining thereto must also be followed, even if the selection exercise is limited to rostered candidates. This must be particularly so where an election is made to follow such process, as in the current circumstances, pursuant to specific instructions from the USG/DM, and where the initial selection exercise appeared marred with irregularity so as to be set aside by the Administration. It goes without saying that a hiring manager and/or panel member should not be, or even be...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

UNDT noted that a staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to a promotion. UNDT held that ‘Priority consideration’ cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. The Tribunal...

Since the Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims in finality, including on the merits with no right of reinstatement, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. UNDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. UNDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. UNDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...