����AV

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...

The actions taken by the Chief of the Regional Service Center Entebbe (C/RSCE) towards the Applicant amounted to a clear breach of the authority entrusted to her as C/RSCE. Her conduct fell squarely within the definition contained in ST/SGB/2008/5 which is “the improper use of a position of influence, power or authority against another person”. It was reasonably inferred that the C/RSCE either deliberately or negligently ignored the principles governing the role of a manager or supervisor contained in the 2014 Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. The Respondent failed to...

Downsizing: The Tribunal found that the decision to cut the Applicant’s post and to not renew her appointment beyond its expiry was made in the context of the downsizing of the Mission. It was a rational decision made in light of the needs of the Organization. It was made and conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the information circulars. It was, with the exception of the short delay in conveying the actual decision, procedurally regular and lawful.Comparative review process: The Tribunal concluded noted that the functional title of the Applicant’s post did not match the...

The Tribunal found that requiring candidates to such a post to type in Russian their answers to the written test was not unfair or unreasonable and noted that, in any event, this requirement was eventually lifted at the Applicant’s request. The fact that graders may have been able to identify his test because it was handwritten or the fact that the Applicant was advised that he was allowed to handwrite shortly before the written test deadline do not vitiate the test, as they arise from the Applicant’s desire to and result from the Administration’s efforts to accommodate his concerns. Also, 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...

Lateral reassignment: The Tribunal held that the decision to laterally transfer the Applicant was lawful as it fulfilled the conditions for such a transfer as set out in Rees. The new post was at the staff member’s grade; the responsibilities involved corresponded to his level; the functions to be performed were commensurate with the Applicant’s competence and skills and the Applicant had substantial experience in the field. Reasons for the contested decision: The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s complaints about the lack of or the adequacy of reasons for the decision were unsubstantiated...

The UNDT found that the contested decision was unlawful on the grounds that 1) the Organization committed several procedural errors in the implementation of the UNHCR Policy and Procedures for the Promotion of International Professional Staff Members (UNHCR/HCP/2014/2) (“Promotions Policy”), some of which resulted in a failure to take into account relevant information or to take into account irrelevant considerations; and 2) the Organization failed to minimally show that the Applicant’s candidacy for promotion received fair and full consideration. Standard of review: In the context of a...

Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal’s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal’s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may “point out what...

Standard of review: In the context of a promotion exercise conducted under a specific policy, the Tribunal’s review is essentially focused on the implementation of the policy. It is not the Tribunal’s role to examine whether a policy adopted by the Organization is well-founded or appropriate. However, a decision may be rescinded if it is taken pursuant to a policy which does not comply with a higher norm and the irregularity results in a staff member not being given full and fair consideration for promotion. The Tribunal cannot amend a policy adopted by the Organization but may “point out what...