����AV

Initial assessment of roster candidates The Applicant raised several questions relating to the initial assessment process, which the Tribunal reviewed in turn. The Tribunal noted that under sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, the Administration has broad discretion on how to assess shortlisted candidates. While the OHRM Guidelines encourage hiring managers to interview roster candidates in a less formal setting, that is not the only way to assess roster candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the administration of a written assessment and an informal interview for the purpose of a roster...

Considering that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection, the Administration can include more restrictive and yet reasonable criteria in the job opening for the evaluation of candidates. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal finds that the assessment was conducted properly and that the Applicant’s qualifications were fully and fairly considered in accordance with relevant law. As the Applicant was not substantially equal or superior to those of competing male candidates, her non-selection did not violate ST/AI/1999/9.

In the absence of any evidence of ongoing mediation efforts or request for suspension of deadline to file an application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant, having filed his application outside of the statutory deadline. In any event, given that the contested administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 3 April 2019, the request for management evaluation of 8 September 2019 would have missed the 60-day deadline set in staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation. Given that settlement discussions are confidential in nature, it is the parties’ responsibility to...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicants were misled in that they were not clearly informed, despite their inquiry, that their non-participation in the written test would be taken into consideration in the evaluation of their candidacies. Thus, the Administration violated its duty to act transparently and in good faith with the Applicants. The Tribunal finds that the Administration cannot reasonably take into consideration the performance of a staff member in separate recruitment exercises, even less so when such exercises took place several years prior. The performance in prior selection...

The Tribunal held that there was no breach of the applicable procedures in the selection process. The Administration acted in accordance with the UNIFIL guidelines for the selection of staff members. The Applicant was clearly given a full and fair consideration as demonstrated by the fact that she advanced through the process until the final stage. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The issue at stake is whether the non-selection decisions were lawful and, if not, what remedies are to be awarded. The scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in selection and appointment matters is twofold: 1) to evaluate if the Administration has followed the pre-established procedures and staff members were given full and fair consideration and 2) to examine if the decision is not blatantly unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the Administration decided to consider the result of the LABEL test when examining applications for the job opening does not amount...

It would make no logical sense to rescind the “the decision to withdraw the offer [the Applicant] received from [the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (“UNAMID”)] for the post of Security Officer at the FS-4 level” because, as a matter of fact, the post no longer exist since it was abolished by 31 December 2017.

Receivability The Applicant’s request for management evaluation was out of time. Thus, the application concerning the Applicant’s separation from service due to post abolition is not receivable ratione materiae. It is clear from the evidence on file that the application concerning the Applicant’s separation from service due to post abolition is time-barred and, consequently, not receivable ratione temporis. Non selection for the re-advertised post of Fundraising Officer The burden to prove unlawfulness in relation to non-selection lays with the Applicant as per the consistent internal case law...

The job description for the position under review contained the same requirements as those agreed for the other services. There was therefore no evidence of ulterior motive in the design of the job description. The position was among those newly created following the reorganization of the concerned Division. While the Applicant disagreed with the way the restructuring was conducted, he was unable to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion. The Applicant failed the test which was eliminatory, therefore, his score at the interview was not taken into consideration. The written...

The Applicant failed to indicate a specific date and content of the challenged administrative decision, as she only recalled an email from the Deputy Director, ID/OIOS, which would purportedly confirm an evaluation of insufficiency of the Applicant’s investigatory experience to be recruited for the advertised post. The Tribunal, having considered the above-quoted content of the email, finds it insufficient to substantiate an administrative decision of definitive exclusion of the Applicant from the selection process. It remains, however, that the Applicant was not called for an interview and...