Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, UNAT agreed with the finding of UNRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...

On the Appellant’s complaint that the non-selection decision was tainted by procedural irregularity and bias, UNAT noted that the presence of two directors from the Education Department on the interview panel did not offend UNRWA’s regulatory framework. UNAT held that it was possible to infer reasonably from the interview panel’s analysis and its sympathetic view of the Appellant that, on the probabilities, it was not prejudiced against her on the basis alleged. UNAT held that it was evident from the seniority of the position and the role that the incumbent of the post would be required to...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. UNAT held that the Appellant’s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. UNAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

UNAT disagreed with UNDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General’s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. UNAT firstly held that UNDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. UNAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

UNAT agreed with UNDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. UNAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the UNDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. UNAT held that UNDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the UNAT jurisprudence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Outcome: The applicant succeeds. Compensation ordered for distress and loss of career development and associated benefits.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and that the selected candidate met the required work experience for the post. Computation of part-time experience: The conversion of part-time work experience to relevant work experience is within the discretion of the administration as long as the method used is not arbitrary or irregular. Written tests: Though there are no established rules and or guidelines for the rating system and the distribution of points for a written test exercise, a hiring manager has discretion in developing a standard to be used to govern the awarding of...

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance—at least, as relevant to the present case—the Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a “prescribed...

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...