UNAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, UNAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. UNAT held that UNDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant’s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant’s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration’s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. UNAT...
Inexplicably, the JAB in its report sua sponte addressed, as a formal issue before it, the handling of a privileged and confidential letter (“Confidential Letter”) that the Applicant’s Counsel had sent to the Under-Secretary-General for OIOS (“USG”) regarding the pending JAB litigation. The JAB refused the Applicant’s non-selection claim, but found that the Respondent owed the Applicant an apology for forwarding the Confidential Letter to some staff members. The Respondent subsequently affirmed the non-selection decision, but rejected the issuance of an apology regarding the distribution of...
UNDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG’s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. UNDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ ultimate selection decision...
The Tribunal found that there was a failure of procedure and a violation of the Applicant’s rights during both selection exercises. In this respect, the Tribunal held that the decision not to select the Applicant for the New York post was unlawful as the selection process was tainted by prejudice, which resulted in his candidacy not being given full and fair consideration. With respect to the Vienna post, the Tribunal held that once the programme case officer decided to test and interview the Applicant, who was a roster candidate, afresh with new candidates, it was inherently unfair for the...
The Applicant applied twice for the position of Director of Investigations, Office of Internal Oversight Services (“OIOS”) (“the Post”) at the D-2 level. The Post was first advertised in a vacancy announcement in 2008 and again in 2009. A selection panel set up by OIOS recommended him as the only qualified candidate for the Post in each instance. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Special Review Group (“SRG”) and, as a result, no appointment was made to the Post. A third vacancy announcement was issued, for which the Applicant did not apply. The Applicant submits that he...
The UNDT found that the decision that there was “reason to believe” that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The UNDT found that the Applicants’ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The UNDT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The UNDT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...
The UNDT found that the decision to take into account the Applicant’s recent disciplinary record was not a new disciplinary sanction but an exercise of discretion with regard to a new and separate discretionary administrative process. The contested decision did not amount to unequal or unfair treatment of the Applicant as compared to staff members with existing permanent appointments. The UNDT found that the Administration considered the Applicant eligible for consideration for conversion, but determined that he was not suitable for conversion in view of the recent disciplinary sanction...
By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager’s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant’s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...
The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant’s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable.
