Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant was invited to and successfully passed the assessment process, during which the assessment panel evaluated his technical skills and competencies through a written test and a competency-based interview, pursuant to sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. As a consequence, the Applicant was placed on the list of recommended candidates by the hiring manager for review by the CRC, pursuant to secs. 7.6 and 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Amend. 1. Both parties agree that this evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the applicable procedures.; In reviewing the selection process, the CRC...

The Tribunal notes that, while the non-selection decision is not explicitly mentioned in the Applicant¡¯s list of impugned decisions in his management evaluation request, it could be regarded as subsumed under the description of ¡°preselecting particular posts to go to external candidates¡± and the suggestion that the process was not transparent but ¡°opaque¡±. The Applicant did request management evaluation of the non-selection decisions and that his claim in this regard is receivable pursuant to art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). As the Applicant failed to...

Assessment process; The Tribunal notes that in her entire application, the Applicant did not provide any proof of the allegations of bias and the negative influence of the Chief of Human Resources in the recruitment process. The Applicant¡¯s further allegations of irregularity in the recruitment process have equally not been substantiated.; Since the Applicant was found not to be a suitable candidate and consequently not among the recommend[ed] candidates, her arguments on the lack of application of the gender parity considerations and the recruitment of an external candidate are not matters...

The Tribunal concludes that the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected candidate¡¯s Master¡¯s degree was related to, and therefore relevant for, any of the required specifically mentioned areas (computer science, information systems, mathematics, statistics) and wrongly determined that she fulfilled the educational requirement.; The Tribunal concludes that an additional criterion was used to evaluate only the selected candidate for the post, namely field experience, and that this criterion was not included in the Job Opening and the Hiring Manager erred in finding that the selected...

The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant¡¯s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant¡¯s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant¡¯s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant, an individual contractor, did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants under art. 3.1 of its Statute. Noting that individual contractors are not staff members, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing and, consequently, that the application was not receivable ratione personae.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision in the present case was the High Commissioner¡¯s decision of 17 October 2014, which considered the Applicant¡¯s candidacy for promotion at the P-5 level, notified to the Applicant on 20 October 2014. This decision was not subject to any further review or superseded by a new one.; The Tribunal noted that the decision of 2 March 2015 did not consider the Applicant¡¯s recourse application on the merits as it was filed out of time, which left the original decision of 17 October 2014 undisturbed. The Tribunal therefore found that the decision of 2 March...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

The Tribunal examined the following issues:; Issue No. 1 Classification exercise and lateral move requirements; The Tribunal noted that prior to the post being advertised it had been classified as a; ¡°geographical¡± rather than a ¡°language¡± post. As a consequence, the lateral move requirements, which apply to geographical but not to language posts, would have been to the Applicant¡¯s disadvantage. Following its classification as a language post this requirement was removed and staff at P-4 level, including the Applicant, were eligible to apply notwithstanding any lack of lateral moves.; Clearly...

Receivability While staff rule 11.2(c) does not explicitly require written notification, sec. 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/3 does so in cases of non-selection for candidates that had been convoked for assessment. Since the Applicant was convoked for assessment¡ª i.e. she was invited to take the written test¡ªand she was not successful, she had to be notified in writing. Therefore, and although the Applicant became fully aware of her non-selection on 26 May 2016, the Tribunal found that the statutory time limit for the request for management evaluation did not start to run on that day and the application...