Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal rejected all of them as irreicevable: first, it found that the application concerning a decision to refer allegations of misconduct made against the Applicant to the Assistant Secretary-General, Office of Human Resources Management, was time-barred, as the Applicant had not filed her application within 90 calendar days of the expiry of the 45-day response period for management evaluation. Secondly, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation for three other administrative acts she wished to contest, two of them being...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proof in showing that her non-selection for the upgraded post and her subsequent separation from the Organization were motivated by bias, procedural breaches, retaliation and other improper motives. Procedural flaws - The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFEM Selection Guidelines were not complied with during the selection process. The Tribunal found several procedural flaws in the selection process. Priority Consideration - Priority consideration is only to be exercised if an Applicant entitled to it is recommended for appointment following an interview...

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent¡¯s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that her first complaint was filed almost nine months after her separation, whereas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority requires that such complaints be filed within 6 months from the date of the last incident. Additionally, the Tribunal found that as per said Policy, the Applicant had no legal standing to file formal complaints at the time she did so in view that she had been previously separated from service. As a result, the application was rejected.

Selection process: The Tribunal accepted that in the absence of any incumbent of the D-2 post, the decision of the USG/DFS, as Head of Department, to assume direct responsibility for the recruitment process through the Chief of Staff, was not an improper exercise of discretion.Second set of interviews and composition of the Second Panel: The Tribunal found that the decision to hold a second round of interviews, and the composition of the Panel, did not amount to a procedural irregularity in the particular circumstances of this case.Lengthy delay in the selection procedure: The Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

The Tribunal found that determining that the Applicant did not meet the minimum professional relevant experience for the Position was in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, and based on a reasonable and plausible approach. It also concluded that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation to be the successful candidate with regard to that selection process, even if he had been initially considered eligible, allowed to take the written test and underwent the competency-based interview.