����AV

The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...

The Applicant was engaged in an unauthorized outside activity. The Applicant’s unauthorized outside activity whilst providing her personal financial gain, did not result in an actual conflict of interest as defined by the applicable rule. The investigators had an obligation, in accordance with the universal principles of natural justice, to inform the Applicant of her right to the assistance of Counsel during investigations. The doctrine of proportionality is applicable in this case to reduce the Applicant’s summary dismissal to a written censure in line with the Secretary- General’s practice...

UNICEF had made the Applicant applying and being selected to a UNICEF vacant post a condition for his return. The Tribunal found that by imposing such a condition to the Applicant’s return, UNICEF violated the terms of his secondment, under which the Applicant retained “rights to employment” in the releasing organization (i.e., UNICEF). Compensation in lieu of rescission: although the chain of events lead to ending the Applicant’s permanent appointment with UNICEF, this was not the direct consequence of the contested decision, i.e., conditioning the Applicant’s return to UNICEF service after...

UNDT held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was unlawful and that this decision was made in breach of his due process rights. UNDT held that the Panel erred when it recommended that the Applicant’s contract should not be renewed. UNDT noted that the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 does not grant a rebuttal panel the power to make recommendations on the extension or termination of a staff member’s contract. UNDT also noted that not all procedural errors are prejudicial and not all procedural errors violate a party’s due process rights, and it behooves the Tribunal to...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

UNDT held that the separation of female and male candidates for their comparative assessment and ranking at the Second Round constituted a fundamental error in the implementation of the Promotions Policy, and could not be justified by the High Commissioner’s decision to award an equal number of promotions to female and male staff members which was, in any event, announced towards the end of said Round. UNDT held that the exclusion of the e-PADs from the Panel members’ comparative assessment of the candidates during the Second Round constituted another fundamental procedural error in the...

The Tribunal noted that: (a) there was no female member in the assessment panel, (b) the panel’s evaluation of the candidates was substantially modified between its adoption by all three panel members and its scrutiny by the competent Central Review Committee (“CRC”), (c) the Hiring Manager failed to transmit his final recommendation to the decision-maker; instead the CRC Secretariat forwarded the selection record (with only one recommended candidate) to the decision-maker, and (d) the Applicant was not notified of his non-selection within the prescribed 14 days of the decision; rather, he...

The contested decision was imposed on the Applicant after finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant threatened to kill other staff members in the Afghanistan Country Office. The crux of the Applicant’s case was that the facts were not established through clear and convincing evidence as the witnesses present during the alleged threats provided inconsistent testimonies, and the evidence was not properly collected and, consequently, was unreliable. Whether the investigation was vitiated by procedural flaws Having reviewed the whole investigation file, which was not...

It was not disputed that the procedural flaws identified by Judgment Rodriguez-Viquez UNDT/2016/030 in respect of the Second Round of the 2013 Promotions Session for candidates for promotion to the P-5 level also vitiated the consideration of candidates to the D-1 level and thus impacted on the Applicant’s chances to be promoted. The Tribunal noted that it was difficult to ascertain the chances that the Applicant had to be promoted but it was uncontested that they were significant. The Tribunal thus rescinded the contested decision. The Tribunal referred to Rodriguez-Viquez whereby the...

The Applicant was invited to and successfully passed the assessment process, during which the assessment panel evaluated his technical skills and competencies through a written test and a competency-based interview, pursuant to sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. As a consequence, the Applicant was placed on the list of recommended candidates by the hiring manager for review by the CRC, pursuant to secs. 7.6 and 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. Both parties agree that this evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.; In reviewing the selection process, the CRC...