����AV

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO’s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance.  Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature.   The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s candidature was not given full and fair consideration. Many questions were deleted after the test, a grading methodology was developed after the test and even the passing grade was determined after the test. If indeed there was a legitimate need to make a correction, which there was no proof that there was, the permitted action that the Administration could have taken as per Chhikara 2020-UNAT-1014 was either: (a) administer a new written test to all candidates; or (b) implement variations to the assessment methodology that would not have prejudiced any...

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 10 May 2022 thus, she should have requested management evaluation by 9 July 2022 but she did not do so until 13 July 2022. The application was deemed not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested decision within the stipulated time limit.

Mr. Farhadi appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that “[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously” under the rubric “Reference check” was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. UNAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. UNAT found that in...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates’ rights to fair and full consideration. UNAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that UNDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson’s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, UNAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the UNFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment.  In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

UNAT first explained that this is a case where the UNDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster.  The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision‑maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision‑maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

UNAT granted the appeal in part. UNAT held that UNDT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. UNAT held that there was no error in the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. UNAT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that UNDT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the UNDT’s findings on compensation for moral...