Judgment No. 2142
THE COMPLAINTS ARE DISMISSED.
The complainants' request for mutually agreed separation was not allowed. "They suggest that a number of staff members who were granted a mutually agreed separation should not have been entitled to benefit from the exercise [...] The complainants request that the Tribunal itself undertake a complete examination of all documents relative to the [...] selection process or, alternatively, that they themselves, or their representative, be allowed to examine the documents. The Tribunal will not make an order of the type sought. The documents of the [mutually agreed separation] exercise, to the extent that they apply to other staff members, are confidential and the complainants' representative enjoys no privileged position in this regard. Without some evidence to support the complainants' unfounded allegations [...] the Tribunal will not sanction, or itself undertake, a wholesale 'fishing expedition' based on nothing more than the possibility that something may turn up."
procedure; complainant; international civil servant; competence of tribunal; iloat; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; lack of evidence; appointment; agreed termination; mistake of fact; acceptance; counsel; refusal; request by a party; right
"In a selection for a post, the most worthy candidates are selected 'in', i.e. to become members of staff, whereas in a mutually agreed separation exercise these are the very people who are most likely to be selected 'out' i.e. not to be released, in accordance with the requirements of the service. The interest of the organisation, which is paramount in each case, requires that the best candidates be employed and promoted in the first instance, and that they be retained in the organisation's service in the second."
procedure; organisation; promotion; appointment; competition; candidate; post; qualifications; agreed termination; organisation's interest