¹ú²úAV

Improper motives: Whilst it is permissible for the drafters of a job opening to deviate from previously established evaluation criteria where circumstances demand it, the deviation must not be actuated by bad faith or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the deviation from the established criteria in this case with respect to the subject Job Opening No. 21952 was informed by the desire of the incumbent of the post with the active support of the Hiring Manager to ensure that the recruitment process in respect of the Job Opening was aborted and she was retained in service beyond the mandatory age limit for separation.

Performance Management: Performance shortcomings should be addressed in the cycle in which they appear. The Tribunal found that the claims by the Applicant’s FRO that the Applicant had been underperforming were an afterthought and a spurious and hasty rationalization to justify her belated and incredible claims that the Applicant had a serious problem of output.

Performance Evaluation: The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s performance evaluation for 2011/2012 by his First Reporting Officer was overcast by inconsistencies occasioned by bad faith and improper and extraneous motives amounting to gross abuse of her position and authority as the Applicant’s FRO and that the Applicant’s entire evaluation for the 2011/2012 cycle was unlawful.

Selection: The Hiring Manager in respect of any Job Opening does not have any discretion whatsoever to reject all the applications of eligible candidates forwarded to him or her by OHRM. The Tribunal held that the Hiring Manager in this case erred in rejecting all the applications of the five eligible candidates to Job Opening No. 21952. His cancellation of the said Job Opening was done ultra vires the legal issuance vesting him with the powers and duties of a Hiring Manager.

Retention in Service beyond the mandatory age limit for separation: A staff member shall only be retained beyond the age limit for separation for the minimum time required to replace the staff member concerned. The retention should not normally exceed six months. No extension is possible where the vacancy for the post was not advertised at least six months before the anticipated vacancy occurs. The Tribunal found and held that the Hiring Manager deliberately and willfully violated and subverted all legal and mandatory procedures for the retention of a staff member in service beyond retirement age.

Accountability: The Tribunal held that in deliberately failing to inform management about her impending retirement, secure in the knowledge that she had the support of Mr. Besnier to avoid her mandatory separation, Ms. Ndongo- Keller placed herself in a position of conflict of interest. The Tribunal further held that the actions of Ms. Ndongo- Keller and those of Mr. Besnier in the scheme to retain her and block the career aspirations of others in her section clearly speak to a shameful and reprehensible lack of integrity which must be condemned and referred both managers to the Secretary-General to account for their actions in subverting the rules of the Organization for personal gain as outlined in the text of the judgment.

The Tribunal ordered both financial compensation and specific performance.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal referred Ms. Ndongo-Keller and Mr. Besnier to the Secretary-General pursuant to art. 10.8 of its Statute.