ÍæÅ¼½ã½ã

UNDT/2017/037

UNDT/2017/037, Munyan

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Filling of a vacancy by a lateral transfer: The choice of filling a post by lateral move—without going through a fullfledged competitive selection process—is provided for by sec. 2.5 of ST/AI/2010/3 and does not per se violate any of the superior rules prescribing the goal of ensuring the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity. Nevertheless, as any discretionary decision, such course of action must not be arbitrary, capricious, tainted by improper motives, based on erroneous or irrelevant considerations, procedurally flawed or resulting in a manifestly unreasonable outcome. Conditions to cancel a job opening: The Administration is entitled to cancel a JO, even after the application period has elapsed, subject to certain limitations: (a) the cancellation must occur before undertaking the assessment exercise and also before placing at least one candidate on the recommended list; (b) if an advertised position becomes no longer available, the Hiring Manager must provide a detailed written clarification for the reasons of the cancellation of the JO; and (3) the candidates who applied for the JO must be informed of its cancellation.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant appealed the cancellation of a job opening concerning an Economic Affairs Officer (P-3) position with UNCTAD, further to the filling of said vacancy by a lateral transfer of another UNCTAD staff member. The Tribunal found that filling a vacancy by lateral transfer is not per se unlawful, nor was the fact of cancelling a JO neither after its advertisement nor after expiration of the application period. Moreover, the Tribunal found no evidence indicating bias or ill-motivation and, in this connection, it also concluded that the mere fact that the Administration’s intent to protect an employee in a vulnerable situation was one of the factors considered for the decision does not alone suffice to demonstrate bias.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

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.