¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2015/079

UNDT/2015/079, Zillner

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

A Graduate Certificate is not equivalent to a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. The correspondence from the Charles Darwin University confirms that “a graduate certificate does not replace, or is equivalent to a bachelor degree, it simply has similar entry requirements in terms of previous education or experienceâ€. The Applicant therefore did not have a Master’s degree or equivalent, or a first-level University degree. Removing the Applicant from the roster of preapproved candidates. When the Administration intends to deprive a staff member of a certain status or right that may otherwise have been afforded to him, and particularly as in the present case, when no proper regulatory guidance is provided, as a minimum, it should do so by ensuring a minimum level of appropriate procedural safeguards. Otherwise, the Administration would risk arbitrary, or even worse, ill motivated decisions, or at least possibly give the perception thereof.In order to get on the roster, the Applicant’s application was assessed by several different entities, as set out in ST/AI/2010/3, sec. 7: (presumably) a FPD/DFS prescreening unit, the hiring manager, an interview panel, the FCRB and the final decision-maker. The many different reviews, particularly by FCRB, an external and independent body, are intended to ensure that selection exercises are conducted properly and untainted by ulterior motives. However, when removing the Applicant from the roster, this was a sole FPD/DFS decision and no other entities were involved. This exposed the process to potential mistakes or abuse. The circumstance that the RVU/FPD/DFS may have experienced a backlog of cases at the moment of selecting the Applicant for the roster is not a justification—his recruitment could simply have been delayed until his educational background had been verified by the RVU. The Tribunal defined the issues to be determined as whether it was proper for FPD/DFS to (a) reject the Applicant’s candidature for the UNMIL post and (b) then to remove him from the roster. The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, an FS-6 Movcon Officer in MINUSTAH, contested the decision of FPD/DFS that he did not meet the educational requirements for the post as Chief of Movcon at the P-4 level at UNMIL for which he had been selected from the roster. The FPD/DFS had found that the Applicant’s “Graduate Certificate†in business studies did not meet the educational requirements for the post, and following the decision, the Applicant was also removed from the roster.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Zillner
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type