����AV

Pursuant to ITC/EDB/2015/07, when a fact-finding panel is appointed, it shall investigate the complaint and “prepare a detailed report, giving a full account of the facts that they have ascertained in the process and attaching documentary evidence” (sec. 5.18). The report shall be submitted to the Director, DSP, who will review it together with the related documentation and make a recommendation on the appropriate course of action to the Executive Director, ITC (see secs. 5.15, 5.18, 5.19 and 5.20). Seeking assistance from OIOS was a reasonable solution in the framework of ITC/EDB/2015/07...

UNDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. UNDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant’s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. UNDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant’s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, UNDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of UNDT. UNDT held that the EOD date as...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal’s review of the legality of the contested decisions was the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants’ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration. The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

The Tribunal noted that the starting point for the Tribunal’s review of the legality of the contested decisions is the considerations of the Appeals Tribunal in its Judgments Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith 2013-UNAT-359 and Ademagic et al. 2016-UNAT-; 684, which remanded the decisions on the conversion of the Applicants’ fixed-term appointments to the ASG/OHRM for reconsideration.; The Tribunal recalled the legal framework and identified the following issues for examination: Did the Administration discriminate against the Applicants in tying their suitability for permanent appointments...

Background for the examination of the issues in this case

The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (“OAIS”) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.

Financial loss to UNFPA

Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the UNFPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that UNFPA...

The Organization cannot be held responsible for incorrect information entered by the Applicant that resulted in his screening out of the recruitment process. The lawfulness of the screening out of the Applicant’s candidature does not hinge on whether the Administration knew or could/should have known that the Applicant’s degree was of a higher level than the one indicated in his PHP. The issue of whether the Applicant’s candidature was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer is irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. Hence, implicitly...

The Tribunal noted that the educational requirement under JO 50523 was a “recognized first-level degree from a university or institution of equivalent status” and to “have passed the Russian United Nations Competitive Examination for Translators/Précis-writers”. It resulted from the file, and it was uncontested by the parties, that the Applicant holds a Diploma in Economics from the Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj Institut Mezdunarodnyh Otnosenij (the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, also known as “MGIMO”) and that his attendance years were from 1980 to 1986. The evidence on file...

The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these rules, the Applicant was given priority consideration due to her status as a staff member on an abolished post and was shortlisted, tested, and interviewed for the post as an internal candidate. However, following the written tests and the interviews, the selection panel unanimously found that none of the internal candidates, including the Applicant, were suitable for the position and recommended that the vacancy...

It resulted from the records that the Applicant only requested management evaluation of the decision concerning her non-selection, while no management evaluation request was filed with respect to the decision to abolish her former post The Tribunal, therefore, found that the claim concerning the abolition of the Applicant’s former post was not receivable and proceeded to only review the non-selection decision. The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.