51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; UNDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. UNAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

UNAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether UNDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. UNAT was satisfied that the evidence before UNDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. UNAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

UNAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, UNAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. UNAT found that UNDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. UNAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. UNAT found that UNDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. UNAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the UNDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, UNAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that no reasonable or objective analysis of Mr Luvai¡¯s submissions to management, prior to his application to UNDT, regarding his non-selection for the posts could lead to a conclusion that the revocation of his firearm licence was sufficiently linked to the non-selection decisions such as to deem the matter as receivable by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT had erred in fact and law in deciding otherwise and that, in purporting to adjudicate on the revocation of Mr Luvai¡¯s firearm licence, UNDT exceeded its competence. UNAT held that UNDT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. UNAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by UNDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. UNAT held that UNDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

UNAT held that it was disingenuous for UNRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. UNAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that UNDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of UNDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that UNDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the UNAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to UNDT and failed to explain how UNDT erred in deciding his claims, UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. UNAT held that UNDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. With respect to the application of Section 1. 8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9 to Ms Xie, UNAT clarified that the requirement, that the Hiring Manager must submit a written analysis indicating how the qualifications and experience of the recommended candidate are ¡°clearly¡± superior to those of female candidates who were not recommended, refers to the final stage of the selection process, i. e. it is when making his or her final recommendation for the selection of a male candidate over a female candidate, to the head of department/office, authorized to...