Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

With respect to the Applicant¡¯s challenge against his non-selection for JOs 2016/038 and 2016/026, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was put on notice on 19 December 2017 that he would not be selected for either of the JOs because he had failed the technical tests. Consequently, he had 60 days from 19 December 2017 or until 17 February 2018 to submit a request for management evaluation but did not submit his request until 26 June 2018. The fact that the Applicant erroneously sought a waiver of the management evaluation deadline approximately six months after the fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Head...

The Organization¡¯s failure to state fully the selection criteria in the GJO constitutes a procedural error in violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The procedural error in the recruitment process did not impact the Applicant¡¯s right to be fully and fairly considered. Her application was fully and fairly reviewed by the hiring manager and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to find that the Applicant¡¯s experience fell short of the minimum criteria.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT¡¯s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by ¡°officials¡±, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

Upon establishing an assessment panel and conducting competency-based interviews, the general rules and directives pertaining thereto must also be followed, even if the selection exercise is limited to rostered candidates. This must be particularly so where an election is made to follow such process, as in the current circumstances, pursuant to specific instructions from the USG/DM, and where the initial selection exercise appeared marred with irregularity so as to be set aside by the Administration. It goes without saying that a hiring manager and/or panel member should not be, or even be...

Since the Applicant withdrew the case, it is therefore closed.

At the time of the 9 March 2017 communication, the Applicant had been notified of the non-extension of his appointment neither had he received any individual communication regarding his separation entitlements. In short, his individual terms of appointment have not been affected and he had nothing to challenge yet. The first time when the individual decision may have transpired was on the occasion of receipt of a payslip which did not contain termination indemnity. That was the date of the contested decision indicated in the management evaluation. For a payslip to be accepted as such...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

The Tribunal held that there is an appropriate correlation between the rating and the explanation as, in her comments, the FRO explicitly provides the factual bases for the negative performance rating. The Applicant never submitted a written statement to object against the performance rating and therefore the rating stands unchallenged. The Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to prove that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not act fairly, justly or transparently. The Tribunal held that it follows from the Applicant¡¯s self-appraisal that she herself indicated that she had received guidance, feedback and training...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...

It was not disputed that the contested decision was unlawful because the Respondent conceded that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion to the P-5 level during the 2014 Promotions Session was not given full and fair consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the issue of remedies. The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures that resulted in an invalid decision. The granting of a promotion falls within the discretion of the...