91�鶹����

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) “a list of candidates” that was “endorsed by a central review body” or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that “[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction”. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant’s view that her involvement with “contentious” discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration’s discretionary authority.  The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the UNDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification.  One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an “equivalent certification”.  In the present case, the UNDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely “experience in leading large teams”, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more.  The UNAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of “lead” is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning.  Therefore, the UNAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the UNDT erred in its consideration of the Administration’s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez’s experience against the evaluation criteria; the UNDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that “none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening”, and concluding that “at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria”. In so doing, the UNDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the UNDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. UNAT found that the UNDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the UNDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the UNDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent—General Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

UNAT held that the undisputed breach of confidentiality in the selection process provided rational grounds for the cancellation decision. UNAT held that the fact that the Appellant had access to information about his test score and that he was perhaps seeking to influence the decision through the hiring manager, rendered the selection exercise problematic and unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the perception was unavoidably created that the Appellant was inappropriately favoured with access to information about a decision concerning his interests and in respect of which he enjoyed no authority...

UNAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before UNAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration’s withdrawal of the offer of...