51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that determining that the Applicant did not meet the minimum professional relevant experience for the Position was in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, and based on a reasonable and plausible approach. It also concluded that the Applicant had no legitimate expectation to be the successful candidate with regard to that selection process, even if he had been initially considered eligible, allowed to take the written test and underwent the competency-based interview.

Were the rules followed correctly to assess the relevant professional experience of the Applicant for the advertised JO? The standards and principles in ST/AI/2010/3 governing the selection of international staff, to some extent, apply by reference to the recruitment for NPO posts. Authority to assess candidates¡¯ eligibility In her capacity as CCPO of UNFICYP, Ms. Kaddoura was entitled to verify whether the candidates for the Position met the minimum requirements specified in the JO. She was also bound to correct any errors discovered in the process. Application of the JO requirements The...

Receivability - The Application was found to be receivable. Contrary to the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the application was required to be submitted by 9 November 2014 and not by 9 October 2014, which would have afforded the Applicant only 60 calendar days instead of the 90 days stipulated in staff rule 11.4(a).

Announcement of NYGSCAC composition The Tribunal notes that ST/IC/2011/17 (Membership of the New York General Service Classification Appeals Committee) was issued by the ASG/OHRM on 7 June 2011, on the same day that the NYGSCAC issued its report.The Applicants¡¯ right to be informed of the composition of the NYGSCAC in a timely manner was not respected. Moreover, the NYGSCAC, as an appellate body, must have impartial members to ensure the fairness of the review, and the appellants must have the possibility to request the replacement of any member, including the chairperson, if any of them are...

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, considering that the responsibility to pursue a case remains with the applicant and that, even when he learnt that no (timely) management evaluation had been requested in his case, he took four additional months to submit such request.

The staff selection system versus lateral moves: This Tribunal is of the view that, because secs. 2.1 to 2.3 of ST/AI/2010/3 refer to the selection system, including the roster, and sec. 2.5 refers to transfer, which is excluded from the scope of the staff selection system, in accordance with sec. 3.2(l), the hiring manager and the head of department must give priority and exercise their discretion firstly by implementing the roster system right from the beginning of it, deciding if any pre-approved candidate from the roster (who is reviewed and endorsed by a central review body and has been...

After completing his application, at the Tribunal¡¯s request, the Applicant did not respond to 2 orders and 2 notifications from the Tribunal requesting him to submit his comments, if any, on the issue of receivability of the application raised by the Respondent in his reply. Given this, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was no longer interested in the outcome of legal proceedings he instituted and that the case should be closed for abandonment of proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that, in fact, the selection procedure for the post had never been completed: a revised vacancy announcement (VA) for the same post was later re-advertised and the recruitment process was still pending. The Tribunal considered that the second VA was a continuation of the same selection process, for which a final decision had still to be made, hence the application was rejected as irreceivable as it was premature.

The Tribunal considered that the application was not receivable on the grounds that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing his application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had requested management evaluation and concluded that the Application is receivable. Implied decision - The Tribunal found that the 90-day waiting period for a written response to the Applicant¡¯s request was reasonable and that the ASG/OHRM¡¯s failure to respond within 90 days constituted an appealable implied administrative decision. Thus, the ASG/OHRM¡¯s written decision of 27 February 2015 was not a separate administrative decision but merely a reiteration and explanation of her implied decision. Receivability - The Tribunal found that after waiting for...