Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

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...

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.

Was the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post lawful? Given that the role of the Tribunal is not to decide whether the Administration chose the best course of action among those available to it and in the absence of evidence of illicit motive, the Tribunal finds that the decision to abolish the Applicant¡¯s post was lawful. The Tribunal finds that the Administration has given reasons for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract and has shown that the decision was neither arbitrary nor improper. Did the Applicant have a right to ¡°return to work¡± at the completion of her maternity leave...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cannot condone delay or adjust the time permitted for filing an application within the prescribed 90 calendar day limit. There must be a limit to such actions. The Applicant¡¯s given reasons for failing to meet the deadline were not exceptional. There was no long-term outage of her electrical supply or internet service to prevent her from seeing the email before the end of business in the New York time zone. The Applicant should have sought a waiver of the time limit or leave to file after the statutory timelines before the deadline for filing. The amendment to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application challenging the OIOS¡¯ decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s allegation is misconceived. There was nothing to show that the decision being impunged in the Application was improperly taken, or that it was tainted by factors extraneous to the complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that OIOS acted properly in referring the matters complained about back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR for appropriate investigation and action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the Application as not receivable.

The Applicant did not show that the decision to not renew his appointment was tainted by improper motive or bias, or that the process leading up to the decision to abolish the post he encumbered was irregular or improper. The Respondent sufficiently demonstrated that the Mission acted appropriately under the circumstances before it.

The application filed on 20 March 2019 was time barred since the Applicant was first notified of the impugned decision in July 2018.

The Tribunal found that the cancellation of the selection exercise in question on the ground that there was a breach of confidentiality in the recruitment process was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the decision was tainted by gender discrimination as such claim was not supported by evidence. Regarding the second selection process, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded a full and fair consideration as he was recommended as a suitable candidate, was ranked second in preference, and was not selected as the first recommended...

Nowhere in the Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualifications of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when ¡°the appointment of an external candidate is being considered¡± as it is stated that in such circumstances ¡°the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed¡± (emphasis added). It is further stated that a ¡°[w]ritten test may be required¡± (see sec. 71). No matter what the Applicant¡¯s status was at the time of the selection process, the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

For the purpose of determining eligibility for a SPA, the Applicant performed higher level functions from the date of the issuance of a vacancy announcement for the higher-level post until the selected candidate assumed the higher-level post. As he performed the higher-level functions for less than four months, the Applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under ST/AI/2003/3. The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for SPA and that the Administration¡¯s decision not to pay it was lawful.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

Nowhere in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualification of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when ¡°the appointment of an external candidate is being considered¡± as it is stated that in such circumstances ¡°the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed¡± (emphasis added). It is further stated that a ¡°[w]ritten test may be required¡± (see sec. 71). The fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR policies make no specific stipulations about whether skills, competencies and...

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.