Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...