51�Թ�

If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days’ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard UNDT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an “assessment panel” is set out in sec. 1 of ST/AI/2010/3 and it does not provide for an apparent right to substitute panel members, should they become unavailable. The administrative instruction makes no reference whatsoever to a possible reconstitution of a panel or to reserve members of the panel. Section 2.6 of ST/AI/2010/3 sets out the hierarchy between the administrative instruction and administrative issuances, such as the Manual, concerning the staff selection. Should there be any inconsistency between the manuals and the text of the instruction, the provisions of the instruction shall prevail. The continuity of panel members making assessments is essential to ensure fairness and equality of treatment throughout the process, since assessments made by each member are subjective. The role of assessment panels is fundamental and crucial in a selection process, which is established to ensure the continuing operations of the United Nations at the highest standards possible in conformity with art. 101 of its Charter. In determining the amount for compensation under art. 10.5(a) of its Statute in appointment or promotion cases, the Dispute Tribunal must take into account the nature of the irregularities on which the rescission of the contested decision was based, and the chances that the staff member would have had to be selected had those irregularities not been committed. The Tribunal is left to ask whether the provisions of the Manual providing for five days’ notice are not there for the purpose of fairness? Indeed, secs. 9.3.4, 9.4.1 and 9.6.1 of the Manual explicitly refer to at least five working days’ notice of the anticipated date of the assessment exercise. These multiple references would appear to be a consideration of fairness to allow people to prepare for the assessment. To say that equal, or unequal treatment, of all is not discriminatory may well be so however, it may be that it is in fact unfair to all. This is not excusable and is a divergence from an actually specified provision of procedural fairness, rather than inferred procedural fairness as is usually the case. It may also defeat any legitimate expectation of the candidates as to the minimum time that they may have to prepare for the assessment process, or in this case, part thereof. The Manual provided for matters that were not contemplated in ST/AI/2010/3. It is not legally possible to use an administrative issuance, such as the Manual, to create a process which is not provided for or authorized by the Administrative Instruction. The Manual was created to provide for the implementation of the Administrative Instruction, it could not vary or expand its provisions. The apparent authorization in the Manual to change panel members, once the processes of the assessment panel has commenced, is ultra vires, as there is no such right given in ST/AI/2010/3 to change the composition of an assessment panel once it has been constituted. Actions taken by such a reconstituted Panel are thus illegal. The Tribunal found that the replacement of panelists in the assessment panel should not have occurred. The assessment improperly moved forward with only one member of the original panel. However, the irregularities in the entire process speak to the lack of training and inexperience of the hiring manager in conducting recruitment exercises. The credibility of the entire recruitment process falls at the feet of the hiring manager, who ought to have known the processes expected of him and professionally should not have undertaken the role unless he was competent to do so. The act of deleting and “amending” sections of his memoranda because they were questioned by the CRC calls in question the ethical conduct of the hiring manager. The Tribunal found that the flaws in the recruitment process were so fundamental as to render it illegal. Consequently, the selection decision must be rescinded. Having found the selection decision to be unlawful, and that the Applicant had a chance to be selected (see below), the Tribunal rescinds it. Since the selection decision concerns a promotion/appointment, the Tribunal is mandated by art. 10.5(a) of its Statute to set an amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay as an alternative to the rescission of the contested decision. The Tribunal finds that, since the loss of chance is not an exact science, it should assess the matter in a way to arrive at a fair and equitable remedy having regard to the nature of the irregularities in the recruitment for the job opening. The numerous irregularities in this case were examined in detail above. The Tribunal finds that in light of them, it is impossible to determine the probability for the Applicant to be selected for the contested post but for the procedural breaches. The Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of USD4,000 as compensation in lieu of rescission. With respect to the Applicant’s claim for moral damages, the Tribunal finds that they are vague and unsupported by any evidence they do not meet the standard of proof required by the Appeals Tribunal (cf. Kallon 2017-UNAT-742). In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal will not grant damages under art. 10.5(b) of its Statute.