±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS or any other entity of the ±¬ÁÏÍø, had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the request for management evaluation was not time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the rules and procedures applied to establish the Applicant¡¯s EOD date were due consequences of the fact that she had been reappointed in 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the choice of reappointment as modality of the Applicant¡¯s move was borne out by personnel actions of separation and reappointment and acknowledged by her in the memorandum of understanding with respect to annual leave from 2008. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the matter was outside the temporal jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the EOD date as...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Application was not receivable because it was not filed on time. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant had until 14 October 2018 to file his application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and he did not do so until 7 November 2018. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application as not receivable.

The impugned decision did not fall under any of the exceptions; the Applicant, therefore, was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so. Thus, the application was not receivable.

it is undisputed that the Administration did not afford the Applicant written notice so he learnt about the non-renewal only upon the expiration of his fixed-term appointment. This practice, however, does not disable the right to seek review of the non-renewal decision by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The Tribunal considers that the objective factual element as to the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment consists in the memorandum instructing the Applicant to commence his separation procedure, dated 4 January and delivered to the Applicant on 11 January 2016. Recalling that the Applicant sought information...

Since the Applicant has not sought management evaluation of the alleged instruction for him to work for Warrior Security Limited Company or his allegations of harassment and retaliation in relation to the performance improvement plan, those claims are not properly before the Tribunal. Consequently, the decision to appoint another staff member at the same level as the Applicant¡¯s supervisor and FRO is the only decision that the Tribunal can entertain. Clearly, the Tribunal cannot reinstate an application that was withdrawn by the Applicant in 2015 and has no bearing whatsoever on the decision...