The large number of appeals filed in #internationalorganizations jurisdictions in cases of recruitment and selection speaks volume about the dissatisfaction of staff with the lack of #transparency and #fairness in recruitment processes.
These appeals fail for a simple reason: for management to win, they are required by the Tribunal to minimally show that “…a candidate was given a full and fair consideration…then the presumption of law that official acts have been regularly performed stands satisfied.”
In more simple terms, if a candidate was shortlisted and interviewed, most of the time, it is more than enough to prove that the process was regular (even when most of us know that it was not).
What happens then?
Nothing.
Let us leave aside our frustration with this minimal legal requirement for a while and concentrate on a more compelling scenario:
What happens when a staff member was able to prove that the entire process was not only irregular but also a total fraud? What are the legal implications when other candidates misrepresent their qualifications on official application forms?
And most unusually, what happens when a Director of Human Resources who is entrusted with the highest responsibility of safeguarding the integrity of the recruitment process and compliance with fairness and transparency, is the one who authorized, paved the way, certified and approved such a process?
Well, strangely enough, also nothing.
In a judgment issued this week by the #UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, the Judge held the following:
“The Director of Human Resources (DHR) is ex officio member of the ACHR (Appointment/CR bodies), which discussed the Selected Candidate’s failure to meet the required qualifications at length, including that she had never served in the post of Investigator… The Tribunal thus finds that the DHR must have known that the Selected Candidate had misrepresented her qualifications. However, he not only failed to take steps to disqualify her from the recruitment process,he took the extraordinary measure of recommending her appointment to the Senior Field Investigator post at the Grade 17 level.” (equivalent to P-3).
The Tribunal cannot but conclude that the Director of Human Resources failed to identity the wrongly composed interview panel and recommended for appointment a candidate who had misrepresented her qualifications.
Considering the serious nature of the flaws in this selection process…the case will be referred to the Commissioner General for accountability..”
What is the entire point of administration of justice in the UN if referrals for accountability are not implemented? and what is the role of member states, donors and other stakeholders?
Watch this space next with a follow-up post on implementation of referrals for #accountability based on real data from the UN.
