����AV

Regarding the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel, despite an alleged procedural irregularity, the Applicant successfully passed a competency-based interview and was recommended for the Post. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant failed to show that the removal of the hiring manager from the interview panel affected her right to full and fair consideration. Regarding the failure to consult with the hiring manager in making the selection decision, the Applicant fails to explain how the failure to consult with the hiring manager adversely affected her right to full...

The Applicant’s supervisor did not participate in the selection process for the four Representative positions in Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Bolivia and Nigeria, and for the position of Chief Gender and Human Rights. The Applicant’s Supervisor’s participation in the selection process for the Palestine position did not affect the integrity of the selection process. The Applicant was given full and fair consideration. The fact that the Rotation exercise and selection decisions for the positions in Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Nigeria and Palestine and the relevant Ethics Units determination and recommendation...

Not only is it the duty of every member of the United Nations personnel to cooperate with the Internal Justice System, but also it is particularly important for senior leaders of the Organization to lead by example. There is no evidence that a selection decision had been made in the first selection exercise before it was cancelled. The cancellation was based on facts supported by evidence and, therefore, it was lawful. The Applicant’s allegations of ulterior motive have no bearing on the decision to cancel the first selection process because the reasons given were lawful. The Applicant’s claim...

Non-selection The job responsibilities of the post the Applicant applied for and the post occupied by her spouse, who both report to the same supervisor, are closely related. The Organization reasonably determined that the appointment of the Applicant to the post would create an actual or possible conflict of interest due to her marriage to her spouse. The decision was also procedurally compliant since, contrary to the Applicant’s argument, the decision did not require a prior review by the Compliance Review Body and the hiring manager. The decision was not irrational or arbitrary just because...

While the schedule set for the written assessment was probably inconvenient for the Applicant. However, he did not even attempt to provide a reason, neither when he was notified of the assessment’s schedule nor in his application, why it was not possible for him to take the test. He simply asked for the test to be rescheduled to coincide with the working hours at his location. The reason provided by the Administration for not being able to accommodate different schedules, namely the avoidance of leaks, is fair and reasonable.Therefore, the Applicant’s decision not to participate in the...

It is clear from ST/AI/1999/9 and the 11 February 2019 interoffice memorandum: (a) that sending a note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General when selecting a male candidate instead of a suitable female colleague is a mandatory requirement as the verb “shall” is used (b) that for “review and discussion”, the relevant note to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General is to be submitted before—and not after—any selection decision is taken and (c) that in this note, the hiring entity is to explain and document why the “recommended” male candidate is “clearly superior” to any...

The interview questions were reasonable and that the panel’s report was comprehensive, well-structured and thorough, and with reference to Sanwidi, the decision not to recommend the Applicant was therefore not “absurd or perverse” It is uncontested that the Applicant passed the written test, which was administered by the technical panel, whose composition he is now challenging. Accordingly, this composition evidently did not result in any concrete negative consequence(s) for the Applicant in the challenged selection process, but as a general matter, the Tribunal cannot exclude that a situation...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant’s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.