±¬ÁÏÍø

Receivability: The Applications were filed within the applicable time limit, all the Applicant¡¯s claims were properly submitted for management evaluation and are therefore receivable. Full and fair consideration: The Applicant was not given full and fair consideration in the selection process. The Chief, ±¬ÁÏÍøON/DSS, has consistently employed personal methods to frustrate the Applicant¡¯s career prospects. Harassment: The Applicant was a victim of harassment in the workplace. The Chief, ±¬ÁÏÍøON/DSS¡¯ actions constituted harassment as defined under para. 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Abuse of authority: The...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the expiry/termination of his contract was filed out of time and, thus, not receivable. There was no evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to show that a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the Applicant. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that if such an investigation did take place then there was no evidence that it was concluded, and no evidence that a formal disciplinary measure was imposed against the Applicant as a result. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also held that the Applicant did not make a timely request for management evaluation with respect to this issue and, as such, it was not receivable...

With respect to the Cairo post, the application was not receivable because the Applicant did not submit his request for management evaluation on time. However, the Applicant submitted his request for management evaluation of the Fukuoka post decision on time. The Fukuoka decision related to administrative decisions within the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. The administrative decision not to place the Applicant on the roster was made pursuant to rules in force at the time of his engagement by ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat and was one that directly affected his rights. The Respondent¡¯s decisions not to disclose...

The application is struck out as being inadmissible because under the terms of the contract that the Applicant voluntarily entered into she is not a staff member and the rules and regulations of the ±¬ÁÏÍø do not apply to her. She is employed under a service contract that confer on her rights akin to that of a consultant and the breach of any such rights is to be settled via binding arbitration. Consequently, she does not have standing to bring her claim to the Tribunal. In the alternative, even if the Applicant had standing to bring her claim, it is, in any event, not receivable as she did not...

Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant¡¯s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.

The Respondent, in addition to addressing the merits of the case, submitted that the request for management evaluation was not filed on time and the application was time-barred. The Applicant¡¯s legal representative attempted to file the request for management evaluation at 4:54 p.m. on the final day of the time limit. Due to the large size of the request, the email bounced back at 5:21:16 p.m. that same day, Friday, 7 September 2012. In the circumstances, the Applicant still had 6 hours and 48 to submit a request for management evaluation within the period of 60 days as required. The Tribunal...

The Applicant¡¯s request for recusal was not receivable and did not warrant a referral to the President of the Tribunal for determination. The Applicant¡¯s claims were all of a substantive nature and would have been more appropriately dealt with by an appellate Tribunal. There was nothing to rectify or correct in the judgment as none of the particulars listed in the application were related to any errors.

The Tribunal found the Applicant¡¯s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...

Legitimate interest in the outcome of the case: Given that an Applicant has no option of returning to the post he formerly encumbered, any decision regarding the classification of that post cannot impact his rights. There exists no direct legal consequence between any classification decision and his terms of appointment; therefore the application is not receivable.

The Applicants submitted that they were notified of the decision on 19 June 2013 upon receiving an email from the Director, Chef de Cabinet in response to a 29 May 2013 letter. Upon review, it was determined that the letter sent to the Secretary-General on 29 May 2013 included a 21 May 2013 statement by the Applicants that referred extensively to the budget which had been submitted on 9 May 2013. The requests for management evaluation were filed on 29 July 2013 which is more than 60 days after the 21 May 2013 statement that indicated that the Applicants were fully aware of the contested...