Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding his claims, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. With respect to the application of Section 1. 8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9 to Ms Xie, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified that the requirement, that the Hiring Manager must submit a written analysis indicating how the qualifications and experience of the recommended candidate are ¡°clearly¡± superior to those of female candidates who were not recommended, refers to the final stage of the selection process, i. e. it is when making his or her final recommendation for the selection of a male candidate over a female candidate, to the head of department/office, authorized to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant¡¯s candidature full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...