����AV

UNDT noted that a staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to a promotion. UNDT held that ‘Priority consideration’ cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. The Tribunal...

Since the Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims in finality, including on the merits with no right of reinstatement, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. UNDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. UNDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. UNDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

With the successful mediation process and subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant’s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent’s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors’ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant’s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Fixed-term post The record showed that the hiring manager for the fixed-term post found the Applicant not eligible as he did not meet one of the required criteria for it, namely “[p]ractical experience in working in the area of sustainability standards”. Consequently, he was not invited to participate in the subsequent steps of the selection process. The Applicant’s lack of experience in sustainably standards was properly recorded in the respective electronic selection system and, moreover, was communicated to the Applicant by email of 16 July 2018 in response to his query about the status of...

The challenge to the contested decision is receivable. The cancellation of JO for the Post was not one of a series of preliminary steps leading to the final administrative decision. Rather, the Administration decided to abolish and reclassify the Post and therefore cancelled the JO in question. Therefore, this was a final administrative decision with regard to the Post and therefore can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Applicant alleges that a restructuring exercise is a pretext for the cancellation of JO and it was a continued retaliatory act against her, but there is no evidence to conclude...

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant’s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

The Respondent has appropriately established the rationale for canceling a JO and readvertising it in response to the Secretary-General’s Gender Strategy issued on 12 Sep September 2017, namely to attract more female candidates. The re-advertisement lawfully fell within the Organization’s discretion. The Respondent has not appropriately established that the role of the Human Resources official was to be that of an assessor within the meaning of the Hiring Manager’s Manual and that he was therefore authorised to ask probing questions to the Applicant during the interview. The only irregularity...