UNDT/2019/161, Andreev
The Applicant did not mention a relevant experience in his personal history profile. Although the Applicant disagreed with the hiring manager’s evaluation of the relevance of his experience, he failed to establish that the hiring manager’s assessment was unreasonable. The hiring manager did not introduce additional criteria to evaluate the job candidates. The minimum work experience requirements for the position were not an unlawful deviation from the generic job profile for the position or unduly restrictive. The hiring manager’s decision to not administer a written test was within his reasonable discretion. There were minor procedural flaws in the recruitment process which did not impact the Applicant’s right to be fully and fairly considered.
Decision not to select the Applicant for a position of Statistician, at the P-4 level.
The role of the Dispute Tribunal is to determine if the administrative decision under challenge is reasonable and fair, legally and procedurally correct, and proportionate. The role of the Dispute Tribunal to review the challenged selection process to determine whether the applicable regulations and rules have been applied and whether a candidate has received full and fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration. The Tribunal’s role is not to substitute its decision for that of the Administration. The official acts of the Respondent enjoy a presumption of regularity. If the management is able to even minimally show that the applicant’s candidature was given a full and fair consideration, then the presumption of law stands satisfied. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant who can rebut the presumption of regularity by showing through clear and convincing evidence that he or she was denied a fair chance of selection. It is not for the Dispute Tribunal to substitute its own views as to a hiring manager’s assessment, as long as the assessment itself was not based on obviously wrong facts that could be objectively verified. The Secretary-General has broad discretion to establish minimum work experience requirements, including in determining the pertinent job criteria for a given post. T]he discretion to introduce criteria in the interests of operational requirements or efficiency is not unfettered and must be exercised lawfully, reasonably and fairly. The choice of eligibility criteria and their application must be reasonable, or at least rationally based, in the sense, inter alia, of not being arbitrary, capricious, improperly motivated or based on irrelevant considerations. An irregularity in a selection process has no impact on the status of a staff member when he or she had no foreseeable chance of selection. A hiring manager’s review is based on the information provided by a candidate in their PHP, and it is therefore the responsibility of each job candidate to clearly specify relevant information in their PHP. The hiring manager has the discretion to choose the method of assessment.