51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal is satisfied that since the Post was advertised well before the expiry of the roster on which the successful candidate¡¯s name was included, the successful candidate was eligible to be selected from the roster andthe decision to select him from the roster was, hence, proper. The Tribunal finds that as a roster candidate the Applicant should have been informed by the hiring manager within 14 days after the selection decision was made in writing. The Tribunal finds that even in the absence of a clearly stated timeframe for notifying applicants who have been eliminated prior to the...

Roster candidates: The fact that a candidate is rostered does not prevent the hiring manager from conducting a selection process and it does not give the roster candidate any kind of priority. Assessment methods: Hiring managers have large latitude in choosing the methods used to assess candidates, taking into account the technical requirements of the post. In particular, resorting to subject matter experts to evaluate work samples of the candidates is in accordance with the rules of the staff selection system. Scope of judicial review: It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, UNON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, UNON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Tribunal held that the decision to appoint a staff member to the post of Director/RIITD off the roster without consideration of the other candidates (including the Applicant) who had applied to the post was unlawful. It failed to give the Applicant full and fair consideration for the post and denied him due process. Roster based selection: The Tribunal noted that the General Assembly resolutions on human resources management reiterate the principle of transparency in the selection process and the need for vacancies to be advertised and held that there is no transparency in a process that...

Bias: The Tribunal held that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Interview Panel was biased. On the basis of the evidence about negative views held by one of the interview panel members about the Applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the test for apparent bias had been made out. Harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority: The Tribunal concluded that in spite of the adverse finding that the Applicant did not receive full and fair consideration in his application for the...

The Tribunal found that the selected candidate did not fulfill the requirement of fluency in French hence his selection was illegal, despite his status as a roster candidate. It further noted that since the Administration had not examined the other candidates, including the Applicant, the latter¡¯s right to full and fair consideration was violated. The Applicant had only requested the rescission of the decision not to select her, without requesting the rescission of the decision to select the successful candidate. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for rescission and merely ordered...

The Tribunal found that the decision was lawful and that the case file did not allow concluding that it was tainted by favoritism for the selected, external candidate, inter alia, since the HM had initially recommended an internal candidate. Procedural irregularities: The decision not to convoke a shortlisted, internal candidate, who was not recommended by the HM, for a test and/or interview is in accordance with the applicable rules at UNHCR. UNHCR policy on comparative review is not applicable in cases of non-selection not involving the abolition of post. Discretionary authority: In...

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of UNCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...