±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful and that the selected candidate met the required work experience for the post. Computation of part-time experience: The conversion of part-time work experience to relevant work experience is within the discretion of the administration as long as the method used is not arbitrary or irregular. Written tests: Though there are no established rules and or guidelines for the rating system and the distribution of points for a written test exercise, a hiring manager has discretion in developing a standard to be used to govern the awarding of...

The Tribunal found that the decision to consider the Applicant as ineligible was legal and did not violate any of his rights.

He claims that all other retirees who had been employed were granted the maximum of 125 working days under ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2, while he was granted only 106 working days in 2013. The Chief, CTS, allegedly favored those retirees who invited him/made him gifts, while the Applicant was discriminated and retaliated, since he had reported the unethical behavior by the Chief, CTS. The Tribunal found that retirees have no ¡°right¡± to be employed for a maximum of 125 working under the terms of ST/AI/2003/8/Amend.2. The Applicant failed to provide evidence that the decision was motivated by extraneous...

It is not clear when exactly the decision was first notified to the Applicant. However, by email of 23 August 2013, a Senior Human Resources Officer clearly informed the Applicant of the decision and provided him with a comprehensive explanation on the rationale and the legal basis thereof. Thereafter, the Applicant contacted the Chief, HRMS, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, and the Director, Division of Administration, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, seeking reconsideration of his request. By email of 25 November 2013, the Chief, HRMS, noted that the Applicant would soon be informed of the outcome of HRMS consideration of his case. Moreover, on...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

In the course of the selection process, the post of Chief, IS, (D-1)¡ªwhose incumbent had been acting as Hiring Manager for the contested post¡ªwas being temporarily loaned to the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), for a period of more than ten months. Despite this vacuum, the Administration assigned a Chief of Section (P-5) as OIC, IS, for the whole period of the loan and derived from this status the authority to act as Hiring Manager in the selection process, including the submission of the recommendation memorandum for final selection to the Director-General...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant was necessarily aware of the amount of repatriation grant he would be paid already at the beginning of 2011 when he received his payslip, and not in March 2013 as he claimed when he received details from the Payroll Unit regarding the calculation of the amount received. Indeed, in view of the explanations, the Applicant had received already in February 2011 from the Payroll Unit, which reminded him of the fact that his dependency status with respect to his daughter had been discontinued effective 29 August 2007, and which provided him with an excel file...

The Tribunal found that since the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation at any point in time and also within the 60-day deadline under staff rule 11.2 upon the receipt of his pension entitlement letter, the application was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. The application was dismissed.