±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

The Appellant sought reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with respect to his claims regarding overtime and the unsustainability of his working environment, and compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to provide any evidence showing that he had requested overtime compensation in writing, or that the Administration did not respond or responded negatively. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to submit a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to file a complaint of harassment and abuse of authority as required by ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

It results from ST/AI/2002/3 that the administration is entitled not to renew the FTA of a staff member whose performance was rated ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡±, on the mere grounds of the staff member¡¯s bad performance. It further results from ST/AI/2002/3 that in case the staff member¡¯s performance was rated ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, the administration is obliged to apply measures which allow the staff member to improve his/her performance, before it can decide on the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s FTA on the basis of bad performance. In the present case, the...

Were the rules followed correctly to assess the relevant professional experience of the Applicant for the advertised JO? The standards and principles in ST/AI/2010/3 governing the selection of international staff, to some extent, apply by reference to the recruitment for NPO posts. Authority to assess candidates¡¯ eligibility In her capacity as CCPO of ±¬ÁÏÍøFICYP, Ms. Kaddoura was entitled to verify whether the candidates for the Position met the minimum requirements specified in the JO. She was also bound to correct any errors discovered in the process. Application of the JO requirements The...