51ÁÔÆæ

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying UNAT¡¯s decisions in Gharemani and Sims, the Tribunal holds that the Application is not receivable ratione personae because the contested decision has no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant has discharged the burden of proof in showing that her non-selection for the upgraded post and her subsequent separation from the Organization were motivated by bias, procedural breaches, retaliation and other improper motives. Procedural flaws - The UNIFEM Selection Guidelines were not complied with during the selection process. The Tribunal found several procedural flaws in the selection process. Priority Consideration - Priority consideration is only to be exercised if an Applicant entitled to it is recommended for appointment following an interview...

Receivability ratione personae ¨C Applying UNAT¡¯s decision in Gabaldon, the Tribunal holds that having undertaken, even still imperfectly, to conclude a contract for the recruitment of a person as a staff member, the Organization should be regarded as intending for this person to benefit from the protection of the laws of the United Nations and, thus, from its system of administration of justice and, for this purpose only, the person in question should be regarded as a staff member.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had missed the deadline to request management evaluation of the refusal to provide her with a badge; hence, her application was irreceivable ratione materiae in that respect. As for the denial of legal assistance, the Tribunal considered that in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, which lies in the fact that the relationship between the Applicant and her former supervisors in the Office of the Administration of Justice, including the Chief, OSLA, had completely broken down, the refusal to grant assistance to the Applicant through OSLA could...

The Tribunal found that the application deals with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. UNDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal (Tintukasiri et al. 2015-UNAT-526), and that it was not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute.

The Tribunal found that the decision not to convoke the Applicant to the YPP in Public Information was not a separate administrative decision, since he had never applied to take that exam. The decision not to convoke him to the YPP in Administration was taken by the Central Examinations Board (¡°CEB¡±), upon appeal, on the grounds that the Applicant did not fulfill the educational requirements. The Tribunal found that that decision was null and void, since the CEB, which held its meeting by email exchanges, did not have the required quorum and the decision was made after the date of the exam...

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...

The UNDT noted that in her 2011 and 2012 ePAD (performance document), the Applicant had received positive ratings, and that the 2013 ePAD was never finalized. The applicable performance management system (PAMS) requires the finalization of the ePAD in case of non-renewal of appointment for reasons related to performance. Accordingly, since UNHCR had failed to follow its rules with respect to performance evaluation and performance management, including mediation protocols, and, furthermore, the ¡°alternative¡± process followed by UNHCR did not provide an equivalent standard of safeguards...

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.

Selection process: The Tribunal accepted that in the absence of any incumbent of the D-2 post, the decision of the USG/DFS, as Head of Department, to assume direct responsibility for the recruitment process through the Chief of Staff, was not an improper exercise of discretion.Second set of interviews and composition of the Second Panel: The Tribunal found that the decision to hold a second round of interviews, and the composition of the Panel, did not amount to a procedural irregularity in the particular circumstances of this case.Lengthy delay in the selection procedure: The Tribunal...

The UNDT found that her first complaint was filed almost nine months after her separation, whereas UNFPA Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority requires that such complaints be filed within 6 months from the date of the last incident. Additionally, the Tribunal found that as per said Policy, the Applicant had no legal standing to file formal complaints at the time she did so in view that she had been previously separated from service. As a result, the application was rejected.

The Tribunal considered that given the Respondent¡¯s appeal filed on 6 April 2015 against Judgment No. UNDT/2015/012, the judgment is not executable at this stage, pursuant to art. 12.1 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

While in her application she refers to a broad spectrum of decisions, only one of them¡ªthe decision not to grant her ASHI¡ªwas the subject of a request for management evaluation. The Tribunal found, accordingly, that the application with respect to issues which were not previously subjected to management evaluation was not receivable, ratione materiae. With respect to the denial of ASHI, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been first notified of the contested decision on 1 May 2014. Due to ongoing discussions, the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation only on 18 July 2014...

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 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.

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 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...

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 Tribunal found that although the requirements under the Policy and Procedures on Assignments and Promotions (¡°PPAP¡±) with respect to the level of detail/content of the minutes of the deliberations of the Senior Assignments Committee were only minimally met, this did not invalidate the selection process. The evaluation of both the Applicant and the successful candidate was made against the criteria as contained in the job description, based on the candidates¡¯ respective fact sheets, and not on any wrong assumptions or errors. The Tribunal found that the Applicant received full and fair...

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).