Judgment No. 1477
Decision
1. THE DECISIONS BY THE INTERNATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE OF THE ILO REJECTING THE COMPLAINANT AND APPOINTING MR. PETER JONES AS CHIEF OF THE FINANCE AND BUDGET SERVICE ARE SET ASIDE.
2. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE CENTRE.
3. THE CENTRESHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 2,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
4. HIS OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is plain from the whole process of selection that though the Committee did endorse the panel's report it had neither looked at the individual applications nor seen any of the candidates but had left all that to the panel. Though it is not unthinkable for a selection committee to set up a panel of people whom it believes to be better fitted to assess the technical qualifications of candidates, especially external ones, it may not delegate altogether its authority under the Staff Regulations. It must exercise its own authority and not delegate unless the rules say it may."
Keywords
advisory body; staff regulations and rules; competition; selection board; delegated authority; flaw; procedural flaw; condition; impartiality
Consideration 8
Extract:
The rule that a selection committee may not delegate its authority unless provided for under the Staff Regulations "is even more important where, as in this case, the membership of the body that purports to delegate affords the staff special safeguards. Since the panel's members came mostly from the management side it was no offshoot of the Selection Committee".
Keywords
staff member's interest; competition; selection board; delegated authority; safeguard; composition of the internal appeals body
Consideration 9
Extract:
"By letting [a special selection] panel draw up a short list and endorsing its conclusions without even seeing the candidates on that list or looking at their records the [Selection] Committee failed to observe its terms of reference under the Staff Regulations. [...] The process of selection was therefore unlawful".
Keywords
due process; staff regulations and rules; competition; competition cancelled; selection board; flaw; procedural flaw
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1359 [...], an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and appointment. When the process proves flawed the Tribunal will quash any decisions it engendered and order resumption with due heed to the rules".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords
case law; due process; appointment; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; procedural flaw; consequence; subsidiary
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When [a selection] process proves flawed the Tribunal will quash any decisions it engendered and order resumption with due heed to the rules, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that else may flow from the quashing of an appointment accepted in good faith."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords
injury; staff member's interest; appointment; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; procedural flaw
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As to the complainant's claim to token damages for moral injury this judgment affords a remedy for any such injury."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords
moral injury; judgment of the tribunal; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; procedural flaw; compensation
| 
