Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Respondent has appropriately established the rationale for canceling a JO and readvertising it in response to the Secretary-General¡¯s Gender Strategy issued on 12 Sep September 2017, namely to attract more female candidates. The re-advertisement lawfully fell within the Organization¡¯s discretion. The Respondent has not appropriately established that the role of the Human Resources official was to be that of an assessor within the meaning of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual and that he was therefore authorised to ask probing questions to the Applicant during the interview. The only irregularity...

The application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.

Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accepted the Applicant¡¯s witnesses¡¯ as evidence as relevant and admissible. The witnesses generally addressed theatmosphere in which the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵISFA) staff in Abyei functioned, including the reaction of the principal chiefs of the Dinka tribe to policy changes which they did not like. This raised issues to be considered in assessing the complaints of Complainants 1 and 2. Complainants 1 and 2 did not sign or indicate the veracity of their statements. This failure to authenticate the statements created doubt as to the veracity of the statements...

The Applicant¡¯s benefit was properly calculated and that there are no grounds for him to claim additional benefits.

Since the Applicant remains on special leave with full pay pending management evaluation at the time of the judgment, the termination decision remains suspended and has not yielded effects on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The application is therefore not receivable. The action or inaction of the Administration to find an alternative post for the Applicant after he was first placed on special leave with full pay is not receivable because the Applicant did not include this ground in his request for management evaluation.

Initial assessment of roster candidates The Applicant raised several questions relating to the initial assessment process, which the Tribunal reviewed in turn. The Tribunal noted that under sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, the Administration has broad discretion on how to assess shortlisted candidates. While the OHRM Guidelines encourage hiring managers to interview roster candidates in a less formal setting, that is not the only way to assess roster candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the administration of a written assessment and an informal interview for the purpose of a roster...

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

Considering that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection, the Administration can include more restrictive and yet reasonable criteria in the job opening for the evaluation of candidates. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal finds that the assessment was conducted properly and that the Applicant¡¯s qualifications were fully and fairly considered in accordance with relevant law. As the Applicant was not substantially equal or superior to those of competing male candidates, her non-selection did not violate ST/AI/1999/9.