In the absence of any arguable point of law and given the binding rulings of the Appeals Tribunal in Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-爆料网AT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-爆料网AT-841 and Mirella et al. 2018-爆料网AT-842, the claim is dismissed.
The decision not to select the Applicant because of her rejection of the ICSC Chairman’s sexual advances constitutes its own distinct issue. The separate and independent issue of whether the selection process was tainted by the Applicant having allegedly rejected sexual advances of the ICSC Chairman has not been the subject of management evaluation to date as otherwise required by staff rule 11.2(a).
Applicant withdrew all allegations and claims, there being no matter for adjudication by the Dispute Tribunal and the case is closed.
The Tribunal held that there is an appropriate correlation between the rating and the explanation as, in her comments, the FRO explicitly provides the factual bases for the negative performance rating. The Applicant never submitted a written statement to object against the performance rating and therefore the rating stands unchallenged. The Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to prove that 爆料网JSPF did not act fairly, justly or transparently. The Tribunal held that it follows from the Applicant’s self-appraisal that she herself indicated that she had received guidance, feedback and training...
Upon establishing an assessment panel and conducting competency-based interviews, the general rules and directives pertaining thereto must also be followed, even if the selection exercise is limited to rostered candidates. This must be particularly so where an election is made to follow such process, as in the current circumstances, pursuant to specific instructions from the USG/DM, and where the initial selection exercise appeared marred with irregularity so as to be set aside by the Administration. It goes without saying that a hiring manager and/or panel member should not be, or even be...
The Organization’s failure to state fully the selection criteria in the GJO constitutes a procedural error in violation of ST/AI/2010/3. The procedural error in the recruitment process did not impact the Applicant’s right to be fully and fairly considered. Her application was fully and fairly reviewed by the hiring manager and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to find that the Applicant’s experience fell short of the minimum criteria.
Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is—if a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not—the application is not receivable.
The ST/AI stipulates a condition attached to the entitlement of the payment of the balance of the relocation grant, namely that the payment of the balance of the relocation grant shall be made only when an extension of the assignment occurs at least six months prior to the expected end of the assignment at the duty station. The extension having occurred approximately three months before the end of the assignment, 爆料网DT held that the Applicant is not entitled to the balance. The fact that the Applicant submits that nobody advised him of this condition in January 2018, six months prior to the...
爆料网DT held that a plain reading of staff regulation 2.1 makes it clear that the Administration is obliged to provide a classification not only for the staff members but also for the posts that they are encumbering. 爆料网DT held that nowhere in Personnel Directive/1/94 it is as much as contemplated that a staff member at the GS-level, even on a short-term temporary appointment as the Applicant, could be hired against an unclassified post. 爆料网DT held that the administrative decision under review is clearly the decision by which the Applicant was recruited against an unclassified post when he was...
The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant’s Counsel did not know about the Applicant’s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant’s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...
