UNDT/2018/020, Pinto
The Tribunal concludes that the Applicant’s application for the three P-3 posts was not fully and fairly considered, since the Hiring Manager did not personally evaluate her candidacy based on the information included in the PHP and e-PAS reports, while formally endorsing the decision of the CSS/OSU not to shortlist the Applicant. The Applicant’s e-PAS reports contained essential information regarding the Applicant’s fulfilment of the highly desirable requirements for the job opening. The Tribunal concludes that it has no competence to order the Secretary-General to assess the way the vacancies, i.e. JOs and TJOs, are managed and advertised, but only to review the lawfulness of the decisions taken based on the existing legal provisions, even though when it considers it necessary, the Tribunal may make observations and/or recommendations related to specific legal aspects of the current existing provisions. Taking in consideration all the circumstances of the case, the Applicant’s request for moral damages is granted. The Tribunal considers that the present judgment, together with USD3,000, represents a reasonable and sufficient compensation for the moral harm caused to the Applicant by the Administration’s failure to fully and fairly consider her application for each of the three P-3 posts. Related
Non-selection for a position of procurement officer.
Staff members do not have a right to promotion, but they have a right to full and fair consideration. It is the role of the Tribunal to assess whether the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules have been applied and whether they were applied in a fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory manner. The Tribunals’ role is not to substitute their decision for that of the Administration. In reviewing administrative decisions regarding appointments and promotions, the Dispute Tribunal examines the following: (1) whether the procedure as laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was followed and (2) whether the staff member was given fair and adequate consideration. The Secretary-General has a broad discretion in making decisions regarding promotions and appointments. In reviewing such decisions, it is not the role of the Dispute Tribunal or the Appeals Tribunal to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General regarding the outcome of the selection process. It is not the function of the Dispute Tribunal to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged. Rather, the Dispute Tribunal reviews the challenged selection process to determine whether a candidate has received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration. The burden is on the candidate challenging the selection process to prove through clear and convincing evidence that he or she did not receive full and fair consideration of his or her candidacy, the applicable procedures were not followed, the members of the panel exhibited bias, or irrelevant material was considered or relevant material ignored.