Judgment No. 1383
1. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
2. THE ORGANIZATION SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 2,000 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
The organization contends that the Tribunal lacks competence to hear a complaint from a "temporary adviser", whose status does not imply the right of appeal. But the Tribunal finds that the organization has described her "as holding an appointment as [a] short-term consultant. [...] Her contract was for a total of over ninety days, she was therefore not a 'temporary advisory' whithin the meaning of [WHO Manual paragraph] II.12.590." holding a "temporary short-term appointment as a consultant [...] she therefore qualified as a 'staff member'" with the right to appeal. "The rules draw no distinction between 'regular' staff members and the holders of temporary appointments."
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PARAGRAPH II.12.590
locus standi; external collaborator; receivability of the complaint; internal appeal; right of appeal; staff regulations and rules; duration of appointment; short-term; ratione personae; staff member
"It is axiomatic that a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum requirements set out in a vacancy notice does not qualify for selection."
competition; candidate; vacancy notice; condition
The selection process for a vacancy that had been put up for competition was fatally flawed because the successful candidate did not meet the minimum requirements in the vacancy notice. The complainant "admits that she drafted the description to fit her own qualifications and experience [and that she was] endeavouring from the outset to pervert the process to secure her own appointment. [...] In the circumstances she is not entitled to any damages at all. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal will [not] award the complainant damages for material or moral injury."
moral injury; good faith; competition; candidate; vacancy notice; compensation; material damages