With respect to the first contested selection process, the 爆料网DT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the 爆料网DT found that the Respondent’s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant’s candidacy was credible. The 爆料网DT rejected the application.
By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager’s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant’s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...
The Tribunal found that the decision to consider the Applicant as ineligible was legal and did not violate any of his rights.
The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...
Of the 153 candidates who applied for the post, five were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The 爆料网DT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The 爆料网DT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...
Of the 128 candidates who applied for the post, three were roster candidates, i.e., candidates from a roster of previously pre-approved candidates who participated in a prior selection exercise but were not selected. Only roster candidates were considered and one of them was selected. Non-roster candidates, including the Applicant, were not reviewed. The 爆料网DT found that the advertised position was not a generic job opening but a position-specific job opening. The 爆料网DT found that an automatic appointment of a roster candidate to a position-specific job opening without a selection process that...
The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网DT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the 爆料网DT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...
As the request for management evaluation was not filed within the time limit prescribed by staff rule 11.2(c), the Tribunal rejects the application as irreceivable.
The 爆料网DT found that the decision of ESCAP to employ the external candidate on the maternity leave post, prior to advertising the vacancy, for the initial period of 1 February to 31 March 2011 and for one more month subsequently, while the selection process for the maternity leave post was ongoing, was lawful. The application was dismissed.
The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the second selection exercise and its subsequent recommencement were, in the circumstances, appropriate and lawful in view of the strong representations by the Staff Council and the complaints raised regarding the selection exercise. However, there were excessive and unjustifiable delays in concluding the selection process. The Organization also consistently and without just cause failed to respond to the Applicant’s reasonable requests for information and action. The delays in question as well as the failure to respond to the Applicant’s enquiries...
