±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-936 by Mr Diallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there...

On the request for the oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

On consideration of the totality of the applicant¡¯s particular situation, the Dispute Tribunal held it was an exceptional case with exceptional reasons justifying an extension of time. An extension of time to file was granted.

The applicant¡¯s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

The Tribunal dealt with the notion of ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± in the light of the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍø Appeals Tribunal. It reaffirmed that ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± are those circumstances that are outside the control of the applicant. The Tribunal considered whether it could find any exceptional circumstances, as alleged by the Applicant that could justify a waiver of the receivability requirements, pursuant to staff rule 111.2 (f) of ST/SGB/1999/5 of 3 June 1999. Initially the Applicant submitted before the JAB that the fact that...

Performance evaluation: The Respondent followed the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Personnel Policy guidelines for the rebuttal process by having a review of the Applicant¡¯s appraisal by the Management Review Group (MRG) which conducted at least two reviews. However, since the second review was completed with insufficient time for the Applicant to submit a written statement of agreement to the Head of Office, wait for a response and then submit a written rebuttal, if necessary, the Respondent breached ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA policy requirements and the right to due process. The Applicant had a mandated right as a dissatisfied staff...