51ÁÔÆæ

As the Applicant withdrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

The Tribunal commended the parties and the Ombudsman for their efforts in finding an alternative resolution following proactive case management by the Tribunal, as encouraged by General Assembly Resolution 70/112, adopted on 31 December 2015.

The Tribunal also highlighted the positive contribution of the Chief, Languages Services, in the resolution of this matter, through her regular attendance at CMDs as well as the cooperative and positive approach adopted by the Applicant.

Although each claim was being dealt with separately, given the resolution agreed between the parties, the Tribunal ordered that these claims be subject to an order for combined proceedings. There being no matter for judicial consideration and determination in these cases, the cases were closed.

Any irregularity in the selection process had no impact on the selection status of the Applicant because, no matter what, she had no foreseeable chance of promotion.

As the matter was settled by mutual agreement, the case is closed.

The changes in the composition of the assessment panel constituted a procedural error. The choice was left to the hiring manager between different assessment methods. As the Applicant was shortlisted for the competency-based interview, she suffered no prejudice from the absence of a written test. The Applicant disagreed with the evaluation method elected by the Administration but failed to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion in this respect. It could not be concluded that the Applicant would have obtained a different result had the composition of the panel been the same for...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate¡¯s qualifications were clearly superior vis-¨¤-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

The Tribunal found that the main issues for determination in this matter were 1) whether a temporary job opening limited to ¡°local recruitment only¡± is lawful, and 2) if the Applicant¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration. On the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Respondent¡¯s argument that pursuant to section 1.1 of ST/AI/2010/4 Rev.1 (Administration of temporary appointments) the Organization may limit temporary job openings to local recruitment cannot stand. It also found that there were no legal grounds for the Respondent¡¯s assertion that limiting temporary recruitments...

The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman¡¯s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).

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 UNIFIL Head...