±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s right to a full and fair consideration of his candidature was not violated. It was thus held that the Applicant¡¯s allegation that the selection process was tainted by extraneous considerations, ill-motive and bias not borne out in evidence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Whether the non-renewal decision is supported by the facts Although, as the Applicant¡¯s advanced, there was no documentary evidence explicitly showing that funding for the Pacific Project was to end in June 2017, other than the Respondent¡¯s assertion that the Pacific Project received no funding beyond 30 June 2017, the Tribunal found that there were enough elements that taken together supported the budgetary reason behind the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The Tribunal noted, inter alia, that the Applicant and other ITC Officials were fully aware in February 2017 that the Donor...

The Administration is bound to comply with its applicable legal framework promulgated in accordance with the mandate of the General Assembly, regardless of the impact of its implementation on staff members¡¯ benefits and entitlement. Any changes to the benefits and entitlements scheme could have different impact to staff members, and it is not the role of the Administration to consider such impact. The Administration is bound by its own regulations, rules and administrative issuances, and there is no requirement to harmonize the application of the rules among different United Nations entities...

Fixed-term post The record showed that the hiring manager for the fixed-term post found the Applicant not eligible as he did not meet one of the required criteria for it, namely ¡°[p]ractical experience in working in the area of sustainability standards¡±. Consequently, he was not invited to participate in the subsequent steps of the selection process. The Applicant¡¯s lack of experience in sustainably standards was properly recorded in the respective electronic selection system and, moreover, was communicated to the Applicant by email of 16 July 2018 in response to his query about the status of...

The management evaluation rescinds the 25 September 2019 decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint of abuse of authority. Therefore, in application of Crotty, the Applicant¡¯s request for an order directing ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to comply with its obligations with respect to the complaint is not receivable. The Tribunal notes that as the 25 September 2019 decision was rescinded, further actions or inactions taken following the 7 November 2019 decision constitute fresh administrative decisions, actual or implied. Therefore, in application of art. 8.1(c) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, the Applicant must...

The Applicant remains on special leave with full pay at the time of the judgment. The decision to terminate his appointment remains suspended and has no impact on his terms of appointment, the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

It was reasonable for the responsible official to determine that the status and management of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF is a legitimate subject of concern to staff at large and therefore comments made by staff representatives about the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF concern work-related issues. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that staff rule 8.1(f) entitles staff representative bodies to effective participation in identifying, examining and resolving issues relating to staff welfare, including conditions of work, general conditions of life and other human resources policies. It also was reasonable for the...

The challenge to the contested decision is receivable. The cancellation of JO for the Post was not one of a series of preliminary steps leading to the final administrative decision. Rather, the Administration decided to abolish and reclassify the Post and therefore cancelled the JO in question. Therefore, this was a final administrative decision with regard to the Post and therefore can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Applicant alleges that a restructuring exercise is a pretext for the cancellation of JO and it was a continued retaliatory act against her, but there is no evidence to conclude...

The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...

The Applicant admitted that he printed work-related emails, lost them, and failed to report the incident. He only contested the Administration¡¯s determination that the information contained in the printed emails was confidential, but the Tribunal found that in light of the nature of the contents in the emails the Administration reasonably considered them to be confidential. Considering that loss of confidential information could have serious ramifications, it was appropriate to conclude that the Applicant acted with gross negligence when he lost emails and did not report the incident. The...

The Respondent has appropriately established the rationale for canceling a JO and readvertising it in response to the Secretary-General¡¯s Gender Strategy issued on 12 Sep September 2017, namely to attract more female candidates. The re-advertisement lawfully fell within the Organization¡¯s discretion. The Respondent has not appropriately established that the role of the Human Resources official was to be that of an assessor within the meaning of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual and that he was therefore authorised to ask probing questions to the Applicant during the interview. The only irregularity...

The application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.

Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline

±¬ÁÏÍøDT accepted the Applicant¡¯s witnesses¡¯ as evidence as relevant and admissible. The witnesses generally addressed theatmosphere in which the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (±¬ÁÏÍøISFA) staff in Abyei functioned, including the reaction of the principal chiefs of the Dinka tribe to policy changes which they did not like. This raised issues to be considered in assessing the complaints of Complainants 1 and 2. Complainants 1 and 2 did not sign or indicate the veracity of their statements. This failure to authenticate the statements created doubt as to the veracity of the statements...

The Applicant¡¯s benefit was properly calculated and that there are no grounds for him to claim additional benefits.

Since the Applicant remains on special leave with full pay pending management evaluation at the time of the judgment, the termination decision remains suspended and has not yielded effects on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment. The application is therefore not receivable. The action or inaction of the Administration to find an alternative post for the Applicant after he was first placed on special leave with full pay is not receivable because the Applicant did not include this ground in his request for management evaluation.

Initial assessment of roster candidates The Applicant raised several questions relating to the initial assessment process, which the Tribunal reviewed in turn. The Tribunal noted that under sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3, the Administration has broad discretion on how to assess shortlisted candidates. While the OHRM Guidelines encourage hiring managers to interview roster candidates in a less formal setting, that is not the only way to assess roster candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the administration of a written assessment and an informal interview for the purpose of a roster...

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the application was receivable ratione materiae under Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 81.(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Applicant submitted and Appendix D claim on 4 December 2019 and a decision was made and communicated to him on 10 December 2019. He submitted that decision for management evaluation in accordance with Staff Rule 11.2(c) and Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the 6 June 2019 email, in which the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) thanked the Applicant for bringing a matter to its attention, was not in response to a compensation claim by the...

Considering that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection, the Administration can include more restrictive and yet reasonable criteria in the job opening for the evaluation of candidates. Based on the evidence on file, the Tribunal finds that the assessment was conducted properly and that the Applicant¡¯s qualifications were fully and fairly considered in accordance with relevant law. As the Applicant was not substantially equal or superior to those of competing male candidates, her non-selection did not violate ST/AI/1999/9.