UNDT/2020/059

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

In UNDT/NY/2019/012, the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision within 60 days and the application in this respect is therefore not receivable. In UNDT/NY/2018/045, the Applicant only learned the real reasons underlying the decision not to select him for the position at the management evaluation stage. Therefore, he was allowed to introduce arguments concerning these reasons in his application before the Dispute Tribunal even if he had not raised them at the management evaluation stage. The Administration decided to select two female candidates from the pre-approved roster of candidates in accordance to the office’s gender equality policy. The Tribunal found that this was an appropriate exercise of the Administration’s discretion. The Applicant did not show that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Related

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Decision not to select the Applicant for either of 2 posts vacant in his section.

Legal Principle(s)

The Administration’s response to a management evaluation request does not constitute a fresh administrative decision. The Administration has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. The Dispute Tribunal will only examine whether the procedure was followed and whether the staff member received full and fair consideration. The Dispute Tribunal is not to substitute its judgment for that of the Administration. In matters of staff selection, when the Administration minimally shows that the staff member was given full and fair consideration, the burden shifts to the applicant to show by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was denied a fair chance of selection. An office has discretion to decide to fill in a vacant post directly from the roster of preapproved candidates.

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Miksch

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry