爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT addressed the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had improperly relied on “logic” to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked discretion to require all candidates to pass the competency-based interview; and, by ruling that additional weight had to be given to the staff member’s individual competency ratings in his performance evaluations even after he had failed the interview. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to promote him to the S-3 level in the Security and Safety Service (SSS), Department of Safety and Security (DSS). 爆料网DT found that those within the SSS/DSS who designed and implemented the promotion exercise had acted in good faith. 爆料网DT, however, found that the hiring manager had acted based on a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based solely on the result of his competency-based interview. 爆料网DT awarded the Applicant compensation for moral damages for the procedural error and unfairness to which he was subjected.
Legal Principle(s)
Under Article 101. 1 of the 爆料网 Charter and Staff Regulations 1. 2(c) and 4. 1, the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. The jurisprudence of 爆料网AT has clarified that, in reviewing such decisions, it is the role of 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT to assess whether the applicable Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration.