UNDT/2011/085, Simmons
The case was not time-barred. As in Mezoui: (1) the Applicant had requested from the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal an extension of time to file her application; and (2) such extension was granted with a time limit of 30 June 2009 (the last day of the functioning of the Administrative Tribunal). The following additional factors were also taken into account: the Applicant’s personal circumstances; the significant delays of the JAB proceedings compared to the relatively short delay on the part of the Applicant; and the Applicant’s difficulties in finding out where to file the application due to the transition to the new system of internal justice. e-PAS report. A one-year delay in signing off an e-PAS report is clearly improper under sec. 9 of ST/AI/2002/3, which explicitly stipulates that the appraisal should be made “[a]t the end of the performance year”. The selection process. For a candidate to be successful in a selection exercise regulated by the now abolished ST/AI/2002/4 (Staff selection system), which was applicable at the time of the selection exercise, s/he had to pass several hurdles prescribed in secs. 7.4 and 7.5, including a competency-based interview. It is not for the Tribunal to replace the judgment of an interview panel, but to ensure that it followed procedure, and gave each candidacy a full and fair consideration. The Applicant did not meet her burden of proving that the decision of the interview panel regarding the Post was tainted by ulterior motives or extraneous considerations. Harassment. If an applicant alleges to have been harassed, s/he must prove the contention by providing “sufficient evidence” (see Parker). The Applicant failed to do so. Delays attributable to the JAB. The Respondent is responsible for any delays and/or flaws in the proceeding of the JAB. Whether undue delay occurred depends on the specific circumstances of the case in question. The Tribunal found that the JAB was unduly delayed in constituting a panel. Compensation. Particularly the delays in completing her 2006–2007 e-PAS report, but also those in constituting a JAB panel, caused the Applicant considerable and unreasonable stress for which the Respondent is to compensate her. Outcome. Applicant awarded the total sum of USD3,000.
The case concerns: (1) whether the Applicant’s electronic performance appraisal (“ePAS”) report for 2006–2007 was timely completed; (2) whether the Applicant’s candidature to a post was fully and fairly considered; (3) whether management of OPPBA had intimidated and harassed the Applicant; (4) whether the Joint Appeals Board (“JAB”) was unduly delayed in rendering its report concerning the above issues.
N/A