鶹ý

UNDT/2016/099

UNDT/2016/099, Vazelle

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The hiring manager for the contested position had determined that the Applicant did not fully meet the work experience requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal did not consider that the assessment of the hiring manager that the Applicant had not provided evidence of the relevant work experience was clearly erroneous or unreasonable so as to constitute an error of fact. In addition, after considering ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system) and the Manual for the Hiring Manager on the Staff Selection System, the Tribunal found that there was no error of law when the hiring manager conducted an assessment as to whether the Applicant met the work experience requirements for the job opening.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application contesting his “non-consideration for, and/or non-selection to, the D-1 post of Chief of Branch, Political Affairs, Office of Disarmament Affairs … on the basis of an unlawful determination as to his eligibility.”

Legal Principle(s)

On the Dispute Tribunal’s role in considering whether an applicant meets the requirements of a job opening: The Tribunal notes that in the present case, the requirement in Job Opening No. 40845 that applicants have “experience in facilitation and conducting of inter[-]governmental negotiating processes” was somewhat vague. However, as stated in Dhanjee UNDT/2014/029, it is the hiring manager who is in the best position to assess whether the requirements of a job opening have been fully met. Unless the assessment is based on obviously wrong facts, or is otherwise unreasonable, or tainted by extraneous factors, it is not for the Tribunal to intervene. On whether a hiring manager may assess an applicant’s work experience to determine whether they meet the requirements of a job opening: Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 specifically states that the hiring manager is to “further evaluate” all applicants released to him or her and to prepare a shortlist of those “most qualified for the job opening based on a review of the documentation.” The instructional manuals on the staff selection system, referred to in sec. 2.6 of ST/AI/2010/3, also specifically state that the hiring manager is to assess the work experience requirements stipulated in a job opening (see, for example, sec. 9.2.2 of the Manual for the Hiring Manager). The hiring manager is generally in the best position to assess whether an applicant has met the specific work experience requirement set out in a job opening and it is not an error of law for the hiring manager to conduct such an assessment (Dhanjee UNDT/2014/029).

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
Vazelle
Entity
DPA
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type