Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal¡¯s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Application and the claims contained in it were time barred and not receivable. Time Limits: It is an Applicant¡¯s responsibility to ensure that he or she is aware of the applicable procedure in the context of the administration of justice at the United Nations and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse for filing out of the stipulated time limits. Applicants must strictly adhere to procedural requirements prior to the commencement of formal litigation proceedings.

Improper motives: Whilst it is permissible for the drafters of a job opening to deviate from previously established evaluation criteria where circumstances demand it, the deviation must not be actuated by bad faith or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the deviation from the established criteria in this case with respect to the subject Job Opening No. 21952 was informed by the desire of the incumbent of the post with the active support of the Hiring Manager to ensure that the recruitment process in respect of the Job Opening was aborted and she was retained in service beyond the...

The Applicant¡¯s letter of appointment stated that his appointment was subject to termination in the interest of the Organization, as determined by the Secretary-General. By signing his letter of appointment, the Applicant agreed that his appointment could be terminated, in addition to the reasons stated in the staff regulations and rules, this additional discretionary clause. The Tribunal considers that the determination of the interest of the Organization is the Secretary¡¯s General exclusive attribute and the circumstances under which the Secretary-General is to determine ¡°the interest of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was unable to prove that the selection process was biased against him and that the consideration of his candidacy was marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or resulted in a failure to give him proper consideration. The application was dismissed.

Selection processes: An appointing officer may decline to make an appointment where a selection process is marred by irregularities. It is within the competence of a program manager to set up a new interview panel where an initial interview panel has failed to properly discharge its mandate. While a candidate to a post has no right to be selected, he or she has every right to be fully and fairly considered for the post.Recommendation for a post is not the same thing as selection; while there is discretion in selection, there is no discretion in recommendation. Central Review Bodies: The...

The Tribunal found that the decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was a reasonable exercise of discretion and the Administration¡¯s reasons for the decision were acceptable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Applicant submitted, inter alia, that as a result, his rights to free and fair elections and to equitable representation in the Staff Union were irreparably compromised. As a remedy, the Applicant sought ¡°an independent, impartial, and thorough investigation overseen by the Dispute Tribunal to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the 2011 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election results are safe. If the results of an independent investigation support the Applicant¡¯s contention that the election results are not safe, then the Applicant respectfully requests the Dispute Tribunal to order new...