Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member¡¯s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was contesting an MEU response, which is not an appealable administrative decision.

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was satisfied that there were sound reasons supporting the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD¡¯s decision to cancel the job opening, but noted that it would have been desirable to undertake and complete a gender/geographical balance assessment at an early stage of the recruitment process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT disagreed with the Applicant that the impunged decision was an act of discrimination against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the decision constituted permissible and lawful affirmative action on the part of the Organization to reach gender and geographical goals set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant did not contest the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment, and held that the application was admissible as the Applicant properly requested management evaluation of the decision related to her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s Recruitment and Selection Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant was given full consideration in the selection process, and that her experience in the United Nations as well as her status as a staff member of the RCO in Turkey was properly recorded in the corporate panel...

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...