±¬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...

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.

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had personal standing to bring his claim before the Tribunal but he failed to establish that the Administration¡¯s decision to refuse to grant him an exception under Staff rule 12.3(b) and to proceed with the payment of his entitlement was unlawful. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant has manifestly abused the proceedings before it and an award of costs ($5,000) was appropriate under art. 10.6 of the Statute. The Respondent¡¯s contention that the Applicant does not have locus standi was considered without merit. Exceptions under staff rule 12.3: the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the five cases are not receivable due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, including with regard to the filing of his management evaluation requests and the deadlines for the filing of an application with the Tribunal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that in the cases concerning separation (Cases No. 011 and 028), the Applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal within the statutory period of 90 days from the date of expiration of time for a response to his management evaluation request. Pursuant to Neault 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-345, MEU¡¯s belated...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

Receivability - The Application was found to be manifestly inadmissible. The Dispute Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to revise a judgment after the Appeals Tribunal has ruled on the same matter. The request filed by the Applicant did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised way to attempt to re-open the case. Abuse of Process - Article 10.6 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal stipulates that where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings before it, costs may be awarded against the offending party. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had...