51ÁÔÆæ

The applicant, a P-3 level staff member, applied for the P-4 post of Chief of her Unit. She was not selected. It later transpired that the applicant had initially received the highest score, but her supervisors, who participated in the selection, increased the successful candidate¡¯s score. This resulted in the successful candidate being ranked higher than the applicant. The Secretary-General agreed with the finding of the Joint Appeals Board that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated and awarded her compensation in the amount of three months¡¯ salary. The applicant appealed, seeking additional...

The Organization cannot with propriety resort to reliance on particular provisions in its Rules and Regulations which were arguably inconsistent with a representation merely because the Rules and Regulations are referred to as a whole in the Letter of Appointment. Not only was the respondent in breach of its contract with the applicant by deciding arbitrarily and capriciously not to renew his contract (as had been admitted) but it was in breach of the contract by not renewing it in accordance with the undertaking to do so if the applicant¡¯s performance was satisfactory. The applicant¡¯s...

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving ¡°by clear and convincing evidence¡± in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that ¡°it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity¡± (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

Harassment allegations: People are entitled to their opinions, even unflattering or wrong-headed, about colleagues. It is only when those opinions are conveyed in ways that constitute harassment or abuse that they become problematical in a legal sense. A genuine opinion about a colleague¡¯s competence that happens to be adverse is not susceptible of criticism. While not placing the delays of the applicant in making complaints about the matters to which he has referred on the scales against him, those delays have made it much more difficult for him to prove they occurred quite as he alleges...

Outcome: On the balance of probabilities it appears that the applicant was unable to perform his duties at an adequate level and the most significant cause of this situation was not lack of training or assistance, but his own attitude. In fairness to the applicant, more should have been done to help his transition from his outside employment to the requirements of his new employment. In light of the rebuttal process being made available to the applicant, he did not suffer any actual detriment from the lack of an ePAS and had the benefit of a rebuttal process. The application is dismissed in...

The panel report did not constitute a breach of the applicant¡¯s contractual rights and therefore no compensation is warranted. Such a panel is not a court and while it must be fair, it must be allowed to do its reasonable best to ascertain the facts as it thinks is right. Even though the audit was seriously flawed in significant respects, the decision as to its content is not subject to appeal to the Tribunal. Constructive dismissal occurs when the employer engages in a scheme of action which, in effect makes it so difficult for the employee to continue with his or her work, that the latter...

Jurisdiction of Tribunal: Although the Administration released the moneys to the applicant, when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is properly engaged, the mere fact that the Administration ¡°corrects¡± the decision in question does not end the matter. The applicant is still entitled to seek a determination that the decision is unlawful and an award of compensation. Legality of withholding entitlements: The test is not guilt of the staff member but merely ¡°reason to believe¡± that they may have been grossly negligent, causing loss. This is an undemanding test, amongst other things satisfied even...

Evaluation of candidates: The record appears to reflect a careful and comprehensive examination of the claims of the various applicants. There was no problematical analysis or conclusion that suggested that the process had gone awry or was anything other than proper. Failure to notify: Sec 9.5 of ST/AI/2006/3 provides that an unsuccessful interviewed applicant should be informed by the programme that they have not been selected or rostered. This was not done. The applicant suffered no loss or additional anxiety arising out of the inappropriate and discourteous way in which she became aware of...

The applicant was the only 15-day candidate who was interviewed. Interviews of 30-day candidates took place the day following the applicant¡¯s interview. The applicant was not successful; instead, a 30-day candidate was appointed. The applicant submitted that the Administration failed to properly assess her suitability prior to considering other candidates and thus failed to follow the selection procedures applicable to 15-day candidates under ST/AI/2006/3. The respondent argued that the candidate was given priority consideration and was found unsuitable for the post. UNDT found that the...

Case 1. Mere knowledge of or acquaintance with one or more candidates by an interview panel member does not disqualify her or him from being on the panel. It would be otherwise if there were a personal relationship (such as family or friendship) with or personal antipathy for a candidate. The practical apprehension that objective and independent assessment will be adversely affected, quite apart from any issue of fairness, is improper. Where a panel member has another interest that could significantly affect his or her assessment, this should also require exclusion from the panel. In this case...