±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, ±¬ÁÏÍøON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, ±¬ÁÏÍøON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that the Applicant¡¯s act of altering the number of hours he had worked without the authorization of his first reporting officer amounted to inexcusable alteration of official documents and material misrepresentation of facts. The principle of proportionality means that an administrative action should not be more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result. The requirement of proportionality is satisfied if a course of action is reasonable, but not if the course of action is found to be excessive.

Any decision issued by the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims( ABCC) will be a new administrative decision which will supersede the one contested in the present case and which will be subject to this Tribunal¡¯s authority upon the filing of an application by either of the concerned parties.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had already submitted these two documents along with his initial application of 19 December 2011 on which judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/045 was issued. Therefore, the Applicant cannot claim that these facts were new or that the Tribunal was unaware of them, since both documents were part of the application of 19 December 2011. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that the application for revision constituted an abuse of process for which the Applicant should bear costs of 800 USD based on art. 10.6 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Abuse of Process: Proceedings before the Tribunal are not the proper forum to advocate legal reform. Where the Tribunal determines that any applications before it are frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the Court¡¯s process, it will not hesitate to visit sanctions upon the offending party as provided for in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Vexatious Proceedings: An action may be held to be vexatious if it is obviously unsustainable, or frivolous, improper or instituted without sufficient ground to serve solely as an annoyance to the Respondent.

Performance Evaluation: The career management system is a system that required mutuality and cooperation from both the supervisor and a staff member. The processing of the Applicant¡¯s PAR was unlawful. It was completed in haste and in hindsight once a decision not to renew her contract was made. The finalisation of the PAR without any input from the Applicant was a serious breach of her right due process. The PAR had not been completed either at the time of the contested decision or the expiry of the Applicant¡¯s FTA and the Administration proceeded with its decision not to renew the Applicant...

Improper motives: The Tribunal held that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract was motivated by improper motives in view of the fact that: (i) the Applicant¡¯s relationship with the ±¬ÁÏÍø Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), under whose leadership the Applicant was working, was hostile; and (ii) the HC and the Applicant¡¯s deputy, who had unsuccessfully competed for the Applicant¡¯s post, had gone to great lengths to undermine him and to tarnish his reputation with OCHA leadership.

Performance: The Tribunal held that while the Applicant may have made mistakes, shown an excessive zeal, or may have...

The Tribunal found no evidence that a Weapons Restriction was placed on the Applicant on 4 February 2013 or in October 2013. The question of weapons restriction did not arise until 18 July 2014 when, following the Applicant¡¯s refusal to attend a firearms training course, the Chief of Security gave him written notice. The Tribunal found the Application receivable but dismissed it on the merits. Receivability - The Tribunal gave the Applicant, who is unrepresented, the benefit of the doubt about the identification of the impugned decision in the interests of not depriving him of a full...