Judgment No. 4866
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Adviser, Human Rights and Law, following a competitive recruitment process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
competition; internal candidate; priority; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
As it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to order an international organisation to make an appointment (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, and 2299, consideration 7), the complainant’s request to the Tribunal to appoint her directly to the post with full retroactive effect is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2299, 4100
Keywords
competence of tribunal; order; appointment; relief claimed
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
The GBA [Global Board of Appeal] had, at the complainant’s request, ordered UNAIDS to disclose additional documents and information in the internal appeals procedure. It did not, however, grant the complainant’s request to disclose to her the text of agenda item 1 in the Note for the Record on the MRC meeting. Given the Administration’s reluctance to disclose that item to the complainant, the GBA asked the Administration to disclose the document to it (the GBA). The Administration did so, however asking the GBA not to disclose it to the complainant because it was not related to the selection for the subject position and was confidential. Having reviewed the document, the GBA decided that it was “not related at all to the selection [for the contested post]” and decided not to disclose it to the complainant. She submits that the GBA was wrong and requests the Tribunal to order the disclosure of the document to her.
The Tribunal has consistently stated that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against her or him and that under normal circumstances such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. The GBA’s decision not to disclose the text of agenda item 1 in the Note for the Record on the MRC meeting to the complainant was justified having regard to the GBA’s conclusion that it did not relate at all to the non-selection of the complainant and was not relied upon by it in assessing the merits of the complainant’s case. Accordingly, the complainant’s submission that the GBA’s decision not to order the disclosure of the subject document to her was flawed is unfounded.
Keywords
internal appeals body; disclosure of evidence
|
