±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay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 ±¬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 ±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender parity had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates¡¯ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO¡¯s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance. Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature. The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that this is a case where the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have held a hearing to determine the states of mind of those persons who decided that the Staff Member should not have been placed on the roster. The Tribunal defined bias as follows: (paras. 29 - 32) "29. Bias is an element of natural justice which examines not only the mind of the decision?maker subjectively, but the manifestation of the process of decision-making examined objectively. Put another way, a decision is not only biased if made by a decision?maker deliberately intending to favour or disadvantage the subject of it for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the written test had taken...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...