51³Ô¹Ï

The Tribunal found established that the Hiring Manager had a certain bias against candidates who, like the Applicant, were already working at the Division when she joined it as its Director. However, this bias did not crystallise so as to have had an impact on the Applicant’s candidature as all candidates’ tests were rated on an anonymity basis by four panel members. The Administration made a minimal showing that the procedure had been proper by following a protocol designed to ensure the candidates’ anonymity until after the written test was graded and, hence, the burden of proving that the contested decision was flawed shifted to the Applicant. The Applicant did not adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, despite the anonymity procedural safeguard, the Hiring Manager was able to identify his answers to the test, and that she deliberately gave him lower grades with the aim to have him excluded from the recruitment process. Written test: A written test is one of the assessment mechanisms expressly recognized in sec. 7.5 of ST/AI/2010/3 as one of the appropriate evaluation mechanisms to which a Hiring Manager may have resort. The holding of such a test in selection procedures has become a wide-spread practice in the Organization. The use of a written test in a selection procedure is lawful and legitimate. Anonymous administration of the written test: Once the Administration has shown that the procedure put in place to administer the written test was adequate to preserve the candidates’ anonymity, it has made a minimal showing that the Applicant’s candidature was fairly considered in the recruitment process. As a consequence, the presumptionthat the administration of the test was regular prevails in principle, and the burden is on the Applicant to demonstrate the contrary. Judicial review regarding the evaluation of candidates: It is not the Tribunal’s role to substitute its own judgment to that of the Administration, including in the evaluation of candidates through a test or an interview. The Tribunal will not interfere lightly in the exercise of the assessors’, the Hiring Manager’s or the final decision-maker’s discretion, its review being limited to verifying that such discretion was not abused.