±¬ÁÏÍø

The applicant was not separated because of an organisational necessity neither because of the expiry of his short-term contract -he did not have a signed contract. He was separated because of a disciplinary measure following the findings of the selection panel. The separation of the applicant was unlawful for two reasons: the decision was made without proper delegated authority (the authority to terminate a short-term appointment as a result of disciplinary measures has not been delegated by the Secretary-General in accordance with ST/AI/234/Rev.1) and the process was in violation of the rules...

Section 5.5 of ST/SGB/2002/6 does not give the right to request the removal of a candidate¡¯s name from the list of recommended candidates as an alternative to a request for clarification. Therefore, the selection process was procedurally flawed which gives a right to compensation. It is not the Tribunal¡¯s competence to substitute the Administration¡¯s decision to select between suitable candidates.

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the recent jurisprudence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

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...

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...

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. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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...

The Head of Office acted within his authority in effectively overriding the recommendation of the APC, as provided for by Annex 4G, para. 28(a)(iii). The relationship between the SAP and the APC is sequential, not hierarchical; the judgment of one is not superior to the judgment of the other. The Head of Office is not bound to accept the recommendation of one over the other. The Head of Office is bound to exercise his independent judgment after giving careful consideration to the recommendations made to him and explaining why he preferred one candidate to another. The Head of Office did not...

The decision by the Chief of the Human Resources Services Section (HRSS) to discontinue the selection process without a proper determination that the recruitment procedures had not been followed precisely was an abuse of the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. While the Applicant had only been ¡°recommended¡± for the post by the ASP and had not been ¡°selected¡±, the serious procedural irregularity that resulted from the Chief of HRSS¡¯ actions prevented his candidacy from proceeding to the central review body and therefore amounted to a violation of his rights. The decision was an abuse of...