����AV

Accoding to the hiring manager, he concluded that the Applicant id not meet one of the minimum requirements for the position and thus, lawfully not considered further in the selection process. This requirement was "experience in leading large teams", which the hiring manager defined as "supervising at least 10 employees".

The Tribunal found that the process of advertising and setting out the criteria for selection was done lawfully. However, it also found that there was evidence of an unjust process that failed to provide a fair chance to job applicants like the Applicant because it failed to specify that the hiring manager intended to apply a definition of large teams as meaning supervising a group of 10 or more persons. This determination was not fair because it did not correspond to the wording used in JO 127555 and in the open-ended questions, which led the Applicant to believe that she needed to explain how she had experience in leading large teams, not supervising large teams. 

While the information required from the point of view of the Admnistration (i.e., supervising at least 10 persons) may be logical, it is only fair if it can be shown that it is the only conclusion a candidate could come to in assessing the requirements of JO 127555. The argument of the Applicant is based on the premise that it is not the only conclusion one can arrive at. It is also possible to conclude that there is a distinction between team leadership and direct supervision. It is also possible to have a situation where the lines are blurred.

Hence, the requirement should have been specific in terms of the meaning that is being given to the word “lead” or “leadership”. It follows that nothing in JO 127555 suggested to the job candidates that they needed to have had experience supervising large teams. The requirement criterion under question specifically requested “experience in leading large teams”, which, as put forth by the Applicant, is different from experience in “supervising large teams”.

The Tribunal recognizes the hiring manager’s authority and discretion to define the aforementioned requirement with a threshold that reflects the operational context of the position. Notwithstanding, this discretion cannot outweigh fairness and the candidates’ rights. When a job applicant is led to believe he or she only needs to explain how they have experience in “leading large teams”, it is not fair to demand afterwards that he or she had explained how they had experience in “supervising” large teams, where leading is not the same as supervising, especially in the United Nations system.

Hence, the core problem is not the numeric threshold created by the hiring manager. The problem is that the hiring manager changed the criterion from leading to supervising during the screening process and without giving job applicants a fair chance to demonstrate how they could have met this criterion. The hiring manager requested one thing yet expected another.

Having determined the case in the manner stated above, the Tribunal ordered the rescission of the contested decision. The Tribunal makes this decision not to question the judgment of the selection manager in the relevant process but to provide legal guidance to ensure that the process is fair. If the rescission is no longer possible, the Applicant should be paid compensation to her for loss of opportunity in a lump-sum amount equivalent to 3 months of the Applicant's net-base salary at the current level and step.