±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant was denied eligibility for conversion because in 2006 she had a break in service of eight days, which interrupted the continuity of her service. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the main issue in the case was whether the break in service in 2006 can be taken into account for the purpose of conversion to a permanent appointment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the break in service that took place in 2006 shall not be taken into account because the Applicant was induced into taking it, without proper legal basis, as a condition for her employment in New York. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered rescission of the decision...

It is not disputed by either party that the Applicant was not employed by the Organization during the one week period between the curtailment, requested by himself, of his employment with ±¬ÁÏÍøECA and his appointment at ±¬ÁÏÍøHQ. Furthermore, the Applicant ¡°does not seek to challenge the 2005 decision creating the break in service, but, [in light of the Tribunal¡¯s decision in Gomez], the later decision not to consider him eligible for conversion to permanent appointment on the basis of that earlier decision¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was ineligible for consideration for conversion to...

The Applicant did not contest the proportionality of the sanction imposed. As a result of his impending retirement, the Applicant filed a motion requesting to withdraw his application under the understanding that he would not be able to re-litigate the present matter in the future. In light of the Applicant's withdrawal of his application the case is closed.

Neither DSS, OHRM, the CRB nor the ASG/OHRM conducted a reasoned analysis on how the date and the gravity of the disciplinary sanction impacted on the recommendation(s) and/or the decision not to grant him a permanent appointment. The Administration failed to apply its own Guidelines requiring that a mandatory review of the date and gravity of the disciplinary measure applied to the Applicant be conducted and that any resulting decision include a reasoned explanation thereto.

The Tribunal found that the decision regarding the Applicant¡¯s reinstatement has a crucial impact on the case because had his request to be reinstated be considered positively, his service with the Organization would have been considered continuous. The Tribunal ordered the Administration to decide on the request for reinstatement after a policy including the conditions for reinstatement is promulgated and to review, afterward, the decision to consider the Applicant ineligible for consideration for conversion to a permanent appointment. The Tribunal remanded the contested decision to the...

With respect to the issue of classification of the Applicants¡¯ post at the S-3 level, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicants¡¯ claims regarding the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with their classification request were receivable. However, based on the evidence in this case¡ªincluding oral testimony as well as contemporaneous documents¡ªthe Applicants did not perform the same exact functions as their S-3 level colleagues. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to proceed with the classification or reclassification of the Applicants¡¯ posts at the S-3 level was...

The Tribunal held that the decisions to issue a Notice of Counsel and to require the Applicant to undergo remedial training did not affect his legal rights. The decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction was procedurally flawed because, contrary to the Department of Safety and Security Manual of Instruction on Use of Force Equipment Including Firearms (¡°DSS Weapons MOI¡±), the Chief of the SSS did not state the expected duration of the measure. The Tribunal rescinded the decision to place the Applicant on weapons restriction without indicating the expected duration and ordered the...

Performance Notice The Tribunal finds that this Notice was not reflected in the Applicant¡¯s ePAS and was not placed on the Applicant¡¯s Official Status File. The Tribunal concludes that the Performance Notice issued to the Applicant has not, in and of itself, affected his legal rights. Having found that his legal rights were not affected by the decision to issue the Performance Notice, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the Applicant¡¯s other submissions in relation to this issue. Complaint of harassment and discrimination The Tribunal considers that, having received allegations of...

The Tribunal found that the hiring manager acted on the basis of a flawed understanding of the role of competency-based interviews under ST/AI/2010/3 when he fettered his discretion by declining to recommend the Applicant for promotion based only on the result of his competencybased interview. Further, the hiring manager ignored relevant material when he did not take into account the Applicant¡¯s performance assessment reports, which indicated that he was ¡°outstanding¡± at teamwork.

After completing his application, at the Tribunal¡¯s request, the Applicant did not respond to 2 orders and 2 notifications from the Tribunal requesting him to submit his comments, if any, on the issue of receivability of the application raised by the Respondent in his reply. Given this, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was no longer interested in the outcome of legal proceedings he instituted and that the case should be closed for abandonment of proceedings.