Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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.

Were the rules followed correctly to assess the relevant professional experience of the Applicant for the advertised JO? The standards and principles in ST/AI/2010/3 governing the selection of international staff, to some extent, apply by reference to the recruitment for NPO posts. Authority to assess candidates¡¯ eligibility In her capacity as CCPO of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFICYP, Ms. Kaddoura was entitled to verify whether the candidates for the Position met the minimum requirements specified in the JO. She was also bound to correct any errors discovered in the process. Application of the JO requirements The...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. Contrary to the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the application was required to be submitted by 9 November 2014 and not by 9 October 2014, which would have afforded the Applicant only 60 calendar days instead of the 90 days stipulated in staff rule 11.4(a).

Announcement of NYGSCAC composition The Tribunal notes that ST/IC/2011/17 (Membership of the New York General Service Classification Appeals Committee) was issued by the ASG/OHRM on 7 June 2011, on the same day that the NYGSCAC issued its report.The Applicants¡¯ right to be informed of the composition of the NYGSCAC in a timely manner was not respected. Moreover, the NYGSCAC, as an appellate body, must have impartial members to ensure the fairness of the review, and the appellants must have the possibility to request the replacement of any member, including the chairperson, if any of them are...

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, considering that the responsibility to pursue a case remains with the applicant and that, even when he learnt that no (timely) management evaluation had been requested in his case, he took four additional months to submit such request.

The staff selection system versus lateral moves: This Tribunal is of the view that, because secs. 2.1 to 2.3 of ST/AI/2010/3 refer to the selection system, including the roster, and sec. 2.5 refers to transfer, which is excluded from the scope of the staff selection system, in accordance with sec. 3.2(l), the hiring manager and the head of department must give priority and exercise their discretion firstly by implementing the roster system right from the beginning of it, deciding if any pre-approved candidate from the roster (who is reviewed and endorsed by a central review body and has been...