¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2015/109

UNDT/2015/109, Dube

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal found that the Approving Authority in this case acted contrary to UNICEF's staff selection legislation and policy. The undue influence exerted by the Approving Authority on the Selection Panel which let to a reversal of its earlier decision concerning the Applicant's suitability is evidence in the stark contrast of the Selection Panel's position when it stood its ground early in the selection process following a query by the Local Central Review Body as to why it found the Applicant suitable. The Approving Authority in this case by directly approaching the Selection Panel to procure a reversal of the recommendation of the Applicant as a suitable candidate had monopolised, sullied and tainted the entire selection process through undue influence contrary to the principles of independence and fairness and the legal intendment of relevant UNICEF legislation. Staff selection process - As held in Verschuur 2011-UNAT-149, it is not for the head of department who makes the final selection decision to intervene in the elvauaiotn process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and the selection leading up to the recruitment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant is a former Programme Assistant at UNICEF, Pretoria. In her Application dated 18 July 2013, she is contesting a 6 March 2013 decision which she claims unlawfully excluded her from a recruitment exercise.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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
Dube
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type