爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the 爆料网HCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have alleged in case No. 爆料网DT/NY/2019/061, still pending before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the motion for suspension. Regarding the application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief, 爆料网AT held that the case did not necessitate an assessment of policy in this area. In addition, 爆料网AT held that the individual aspects of the case which were raised in the friend-of-court brief had to be disregarded as they would override the inherent purpose of the friend-of-court procedure, which was to establish general and collective guidelines for the future rather than those for an individual. Regarding the motion for additional pleadings, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify receiving the additional evidence submitted by Mr Ross with the motion, which for the most part was known to either party and should have been presented at the level of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings. Regarding the motion of submission of applicable legal norms, 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General that 爆料网HCR’s Policy on Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority of 2014 was not relevant to the case. 爆料网AT rejected the motion, noting that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing of such an additional legal document, the facts, and arguments of the present case did not relate to any allegation of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Regarding the request for oral hearings, 爆料网AT rejected the request, finding that the factual and legal issues arising from Mr. Ross’ appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Regarding the non-renewal of Mr. Ross’ contract, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that, having refused to accept an extension of his temporary assignment and an offer to be recommended for another regular position, Mr. Ross knowingly assumed the risk of not being able to secure another assignment or position before his FTA expired. Noting that an FTA carries no expectation of renewal unless there is evidence of a firm commitment otherwise, 爆料网AT held that Mr. Ross’ appeal contesting the non-extension of his FTA failed. Regarding Mr. Ross’ non-selection for a second post, 爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网DT’s finding that the application was receivable ratione personae. On whether 爆料网DT was correct in its finding that the filing of the management evaluation request was timely, 爆料网AT held that the request for management evaluation was late and therefore the Mr Ross application regarding the non-selection not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT, therefore, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment on the recission of the non-selection decision and the compensation in-lieu of rescission. Regarding Mr Ross’ requests for compensation for his separation of service, 爆料网AT held that there were no grounds for compensation as there was no illegality in the Appellant’s separation from service. 爆料网AT further held that there were no grounds for an award of compensation in lieu, nor for an award of compensation for moral damage or for missed career opportunities. Regarding Mr Ross’ request for referral for accountability and award of costs against the Secretary-General for abuse of process, 爆料网AT held that no manifest abuse of process was established which could justify an award of costs against the Secretary-General and that no referral for accountability would be warranted. 爆料网AT granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in part, regarding the rescission of the non-selection decision and the amount awarded for compensation in lieu. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr Ross’ appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr Ross contested the decisions: 1) not to select him for a position; 2) separate him from service; and 3) to place a note in his personnel file. 爆料网DT dismissed his claims pertaining to separation, found that his non-selection was unlawful due to procedural irregularity, and ordered the removal of the note from his personnel file.
Legal Principle(s)
A fixed-term appointment does not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of the length of service, unless there is evidence of a firm commitment otherwise. 爆料网AT is not a forum for a party to reargue the case without identifying the defects and demonstrating on which grounds an impugned 爆料网DT judgment is erroneous. In the absence of a compelling argument that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law, or on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, 爆料网AT will not interfere with the findings of 爆料网DT.