Â鶹´«Ã½

The Applicant indicated that he had been promised during a pre-interview presentation that the names of the assessors would be provided. The Respondent failed to present a plausible, or indeed any, basis for the non-response to the Applicant’s proactive inquiry as to the names of the assessors. It would have been proper, under the circumstances, for the Respondent to either dispute the fact of the promise or provide the requested information. The Respondent’s silence drew a finding of impropriety. If the Applicant had received the assessors’ names, he would have had the opportunity to raise...

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.

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 Tribunal finds that the Applicants were misled in that they were not clearly informed, despite their inquiry, that their non-participation in the written test would be taken into consideration in the evaluation of their candidacies. Thus, the Administration violated its duty to act transparently and in good faith with the Applicants. The Tribunal finds that the Administration cannot reasonably take into consideration the performance of a staff member in separate recruitment exercises, even less so when such exercises took place several years prior. The performance in prior selection...

The issue at stake is whether the non-selection decisions were lawful and, if not, what remedies are to be awarded. The scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in selection and appointment matters is twofold: 1) to evaluate if the Administration has followed the pre-established procedures and staff members were given full and fair consideration and 2) to examine if the decision is not blatantly unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the Administration decided to consider the result of the LABEL test when examining applications for the job opening does not amount...

The two desirable criteria that the Applicant was deemed not to have met were indeed listed in the vacancy announcement for the post. It was therefore legitimate for the Respondent under sec. 7.4 of ST/AI/2020/3 to review the candidates against such criteria and use them to determine which of the candidates were more suitable for the post. The Applicant does not show that the description of her duties and responsibilities in her personal history profile demonstrated to the Hiring Manager that she had the required experience. The Respondent did not abuse his discretion in evaluating the...

The Applicant’s claims of ulterior motive are unsubstantiated. The preferential consideration of female candidates only applies when women are under-represented according to sec. 3(c) of the memorandum from the Secretary-General of 11 February 2019 on the implementation of ST/AI/1999/9 (Special measures for the achievement of gender equality). The evidence shows, however, that women are not under-represented in the relevant unit. Therefore, the Applicant was not entitled to preferential consideration due to her gender. The Administration has shown that the applicable procedure was followed...

The Respondent produced adequate contemporaneous written documentation to minimally show that the Applicant received a full and fair consideration pursuant to Lemonnier and Verma. The Applicant failed to rebut this with clear and convincing evidence, noting that the contested non-selection decision was solely based on him failing this written test and that no evidence on record points to any ulterior motives.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant became aware of the contested decision on 21 February 2019. She requested management evaluation on 27 April 2019 and she was late by 5 days. Since the request for management evaluation was time-barred, the application before the UNDT was not receivable.

The Applicant does not show, or even allege, any exceptional circumstances which may have precluded her from timely accessing the invitation email to the written test. Accordingly, the Applicant has not shown that the Administration denied her full and fair consideration. The decision that the Applicant was ineligible signified the end of the process as far as she was concerned. This decision cannot be described as merely preparatory and was therefore reviewable.