����AV

SummaryThe Tribunal concluded that the selection process was procedurally flawed for the following reasons: a. the job opening did not identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of the technical skills during the selection process;b. the selection panel did not include an expert on Russian language and a non-voting member representing the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, which the Tribunal considered was necessary in accordance with ST/AI/1998/7;c. the selection panel did not assess the short-listed candidates through an assessment...

The Tribunal found no evidence of an express promise in writing sufficient to support a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. The Tribunal also found that the reason given for the decision was sufficiently supported by the weight of the credible evidence. The Applicant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the case created a situation in which a fair-minded observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the presence of that senior official on the interview panel would lead to a reasonable perception of bias. It was thus unreasonable for that Panel member not to, at least, have raised the matter of a perceived conflict of interest with the panel and, ultimately, not to have recused himself from sitting on it. However, since there was no evidence that the presence of the senior manager had an impact on the outcome of the selection process...

Lawfulness of non-renewal decision: The Tribunal held that the instructions from UNHQ about the need for UNMIL to cut its budget by downsizing provided ample justification for the restructuring of the Mission which included the down-grading of a number of posts, including that encumbered by the Applicant. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reasons for the restructuring were genuine. Abolition of post: The Tribunal concluded that the contested decision was clear on its face that it was due to budget cuts and downsizing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the reference to the abolition of the...

In the Applicant’s view, the Hiring Manager’s alleged favoritism of the candidate finally selected was evidenced by the 19-month delay in advertising the post and a change in the standard language of the experience requirements, without which the successful candidate would have been ineligible. However, the evidence showed that said factors did not have a significant impact on the candidate’s eligibility. Moreover, the slight lowering of the experience criterion was not originated by the Hiring Manager and, while he delayed the advertising he did so to ensure his alternative employment in case...

The context of the impugned decision was important because it was central to the Applicant’s case that the decision to exclude her from the comparative review exercise which led to her separation, was made in bad faith, and that it stemmed from the conflict surrounding the decision to transfer her from the CAS Office to the Supply Section. The Applicant’s case was that she was unlawfully excluded from the comparative review pool for Warehouse Assistants. The Applicant was transferred to the Supply Section despite her repeated protests and the explanation given was that the move was made to...

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant’s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

The Applicant did not mention a relevant experience in his personal history profile. Although the Applicant disagreed with the hiring manager’s evaluation of the relevance of his experience, he failed to establish that the hiring manager’s assessment was unreasonable. The hiring manager did not introduce additional criteria to evaluate the job candidates. The minimum work experience requirements for the position were not an unlawful deviation from the generic job profile for the position or unduly restrictive. The hiring manager’s decision to not administer a written test was within his...

The investigation complied with the requirements set out in ST/SGB/2008/5 and the Applicant was afforded proper due process. The provisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 do not grant a right to staff members who bring complaints of prohibited conduct given to interview certain witnesses in order to confront his accusersand therefore finds no merit to this claim of an irregularity. The Fact-Finding Panel fully considered all relevant and material aspects of the Applicant’s complaint. In smaller entities in the Organization, a head of office may also be required to act as a Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”)...