Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Background for the examination of the issues in this case

The Tribunal found that the wayin which the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (¡°OAIS¡±) conducted its investigation clearly led to great unfairness to the Applicant given the circumstances of this case.

Financial loss to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA

Since a pivotal part of the scope of the investigation was to establish financial loss to the Organization and or financial benefit to the Applicant as a result of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA leases, it was surprising for the Tribunal to note that there was no certain finding of the actual financial loss that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA...

The Organization cannot be held responsible for incorrect information entered by the Applicant that resulted in his screening out of the recruitment process. The lawfulness of the screening out of the Applicant¡¯s candidature does not hinge on whether the Administration knew or could/should have known that the Applicant¡¯s degree was of a higher level than the one indicated in his PHP. The issue of whether the Applicant¡¯s candidature was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer is irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. Hence, implicitly...

The Tribunal noted that the educational requirement under JO 50523 was a ¡°recognized first-level degree from a university or institution of equivalent status¡± and to ¡°have passed the Russian United Nations Competitive Examination for Translators/Pr¨¦cis-writers¡±. It resulted from the file, and it was uncontested by the parties, that the Applicant holds a Diploma in Economics from the Moskovskij Gosudarstvennyj Institut Mezdunarodnyh Otnosenij (the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, also known as ¡°MGIMO¡±) and that his attendance years were from 1980 to 1986. The evidence on file...

The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these rules, the Applicant was given priority consideration due to her status as a staff member on an abolished post and was shortlisted, tested, and interviewed for the post as an internal candidate. However, following the written tests and the interviews, the selection panel unanimously found that none of the internal candidates, including the Applicant, were suitable for the position and recommended that the vacancy...

It resulted from the records that the Applicant only requested management evaluation of the decision concerning her non-selection, while no management evaluation request was filed with respect to the decision to abolish her former post The Tribunal, therefore, found that the claim concerning the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s former post was not receivable and proceeded to only review the non-selection decision. The Tribunal found that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Staff Selection and the Recruitment Strategy. In accordance with these...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

1)Disciplinary sanction The Applicant failed to disclose that her husband had been employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF vendors during the Applicant¡¯s employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF and these material facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been sufficiently established and were not in dispute between the parties. The legal framework is sufficiently clear in determining that a conflict of interest may exist even where there is only the possibility that the staff member or the private business with which he or she may have association could benefit from such association. The Administration properly...

Preliminary matters Loss of Applicant¡¯s professional emails (potential evidence): One of the Applicant¡¯s main arguments was that allegedly exculpatory evidence in her case (emails from and to the Applicant) had been lost which affected her due process rights, thus rendering the investigation unfair and improper. The Tribunal found that the alleged email evidence was not destroyed wilfully. Rather, it was destroyed as a consequence of the negligence of a number of people. The Tribunal noted that the investigators have a very high duty to locate and preserve evidence. The investigators are also...