Judgment No. 1071
Decision
1. The Director's decision of 8 September 1989 is quashed insofar as it refuses payment of an indemnity to the complainant.
2. The PAHO shall pay her damages equal to the difference between her actual earnings at grade G.5 and the sums she would have earned had she held G.6 post 5500 in the period from the date of Mr. Quilodran's appointment to that post up to the date of her own promotion to G.6.
3. The Organization shall pay her 500 United States dollars in costs.
Consideration 3
Extract:
Both the complainant and one other candidate, Mr. X, were short-listed after a post they applied for was put up for competition. The Selection Committee interviewed Mr. X and he then got the appointment. Referring to precedent as stated in Judgment 107, the Tribunal held that "the Selection Committee did not put the complainant on an equal footing with Mr. [X]: it interviewed him but not her." The selection procedure was flawed and the complainant entitled to damages.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 107
Keywords
equal treatment; competition; candidate; procedural flaw
Consideration 7
Extract:
PAHO Staff Regulation 4.4 gives preference when filling vacancies to existing staff members over outside candidates. The Regulation "does not give existing staff members absolute priority in promotion and the Tribunal does not make rulings on such matters as staff policy, which are within the prerogative of the Director. Yet, if there were a consistent practice of recruiting people under temporary appointments and later appointing them to permanent posts, in preference to inside applicants, on the strength of the experience they had thereby gained, it would offend against the purpose and spirit of Regulation 4.4." (Vide Judgment 1077.)
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF REGULATION 4.4
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1077
Keywords
vacancy; competition; candidate; internal candidate; priority; judicial review
| 
