������ҹ������

Receivability: The part of the application regarding the decision identified under “g) the possibility of providing a negative reference about [the Applicant] to OLA where [she has] been interviewed and considered for a shortterm position of six months” is to be rejected as not receivable since a request for management evaluation was not filed timely. Merits: The contested decision: The Applicant’s fixed-term contract was terminated following the abolishment of her post due to a lack of funds and therefore subject to availability of suitable posts, the Applicant had the right (“shall”) to be...

Under sec. 3.2 of ST/SB/2008/5 and as a matter of good faith and fair dealing, by failing/omitting to review and consider an Applicant’s complaint and informing him of the result, the Administration rendered an appealable administrative decision in accordance with art. 2.1 of the UNDT Statute and the Appeals Tribunal’s consistent jurisprudence. The Tribunal finds that the application is receivable.

The Tribunal finds it noteworthy that in relation to functional delegation of authority, the person in whom authority is vested by virtue of his/her position/function has the power to delegate that authority. However, such delegation does not equate to the delegator definitively ridding himself/herself of the powers and authority that he or she delegates. Legally, a delegator continues to maintain the powers and authority that he or she has delegated, and such delegation is thus revocable at any time. Therefore, both parties’ arguments that the USG/OIOS could or should have “surrendered” her...

Section 3.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 imposes a “duty” on the Administration “to take all appropriate measures” with a view to “promot[ing] a harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct”, but very limited statutory guidance is otherwise provided in the provision on what such measures could be in practice. The only example, at least as relevant to the present case, appears to be that “complaints of prohibited conduct are promptly addressed in a fair and impartial manner”. A search of the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisprudence reveals that the...

Receivability The contested decision, i.e., the decision taken by the Director, ID, OIOS, not to rearrange the Applicant’s reporting lines is an administrative decision. In fact, reporting lines relate directly to the core of the employee-employer relationship and have an impact not only on the daily functions that the staff member performs but, also, on its evaluation and future career prospects. Hierarchy and reporting lines are an essential part of a complex normative framework for performance management, namely ST/AI/2010/5, and impact directly the staff member’s terms of employment...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute.

Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed “exceptional circumstances” that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...

The changes in the composition of the assessment panel constituted a procedural error. The choice was left to the hiring manager between different assessment methods. As the Applicant was shortlisted for the competency-based interview, she suffered no prejudice from the absence of a written test. The Applicant disagreed with the evaluation method elected by the Administration but failed to show that the Administration exceeded its discretion in this respect. It could not be concluded that the Applicant would have obtained a different result had the composition of the panel been the same for...

Merits: The evaluation criteria in the comparative review matrix on record, against which the suitability of job candidates was appraised, did not correspond to the mandatory and desirable/advantageous qualifications, and in light of these anomalies alone, the Respondent failed to minimally demonstrate that the Applicant received full and fair consideration. Considering that the documents on record do not include any specific analysis with supporting documentation as to how the selected male candidate’s qualifications were clearly superior vis-à-vis the Applicant, the Applicant has proved...

With the successful mediation process and subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.