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...

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 The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures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 The Tribunal rescinded the contested decision but noted that it has no power to grant the Applicant a promotion to the P-5 level, notwithstanding the admitted flaws in the procedures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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a staff member has a right to be fully and fairly considered for promotion through a competitive selection process untainted by improper motives like bias or discrimination. A candidate has no right to a promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that ¡®Priority consideration¡¯ cannot be interpreted as a promise or guarantee to be appointed or receive what one is considered in priority for and that to hold otherwise would compromise the highest standards of efficiency, competency, and integrity required in selecting the best candidate for staff positions under Article 101 of the Charter. The Tribunal...

Since the Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims in finality, including on the merits with no right of reinstatement, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

With the successful mediation process and subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant¡¯s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent¡¯s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors¡¯ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

Fixed-term post The record showed that the hiring manager for the fixed-term post found the Applicant not eligible as he did not meet one of the required criteria for it, namely ¡°[p]ractical experience in working in the area of sustainability standards¡±. Consequently, he was not invited to participate in the subsequent steps of the selection process. The Applicant¡¯s lack of experience in sustainably standards was properly recorded in the respective electronic selection system and, moreover, was communicated to the Applicant by email of 16 July 2018 in response to his query about the status of...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.