±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent¡¯s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...