±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, in its earlier Judgment McCloskey ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/199 that only the decision pertaining to the Statement of Tax Settlement for the year 2010 was receivable. Following the Tribunal¡¯s Judgments in McCloskey ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/199 and Johnson ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-240, the Respondent no longer contests the illegality of the decision to use the Applicant¡¯s wife¡¯s foreign income tax credit. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor...

The Tribunal has to strike a balance between the subjective and introspective feelings and perception of the aggrieved staff member with the application of reasonableness, rationality and objectivity in arriving at a fair and proper assessment of damage particularly involving the indefinable characteristics of what has been described in broad general terms as ¡°moral damage¡±.The Applicant distress and anxiety as a result of feeling extremely upset and not valued by the Organization cannot justifiably be placed at the top end of the scale of severity but rather at the lower end. This is even...

As regards her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that the ratings resulting from the rebuttal processes had replaced the initial ratings and that hence the e-Pas reports cannot be annulled. Concerning the inclusion in the OSF of documents arising from the rebuttal processes relating to her e-Pas reports, the Tribunal found that only the documents specified in ST/AI/2002/3 and ST/AI/2010/5 are to be included in her OSF. It also found that the irregularities in relation to her e-Pas reports were of such gravity as to render them meaningless and that they are thus not be included in her OSF. The...

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

Failure to file a reply: The Tribunal held that when a Reply is due in accordance with art. 10.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules, the Respondent is required to comply with his obligation. He may not choose to file a Motion to have receivability considered as a preliminary issue or any other motion in lieu of his Reply. Subsequently, the only available remedy for the Respondent who fails to file a reply within the prescribed timeline is to seek leave of the Tribunal to be entitled to take part in the proceedings. Summary judgment: Noting that under art. 19 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules, a party is entitled to judgment...

The Tribunal reasoned that when seeking to challenge a policy, it was imperative that an applicant was specific in identifying how that policy had adversely affected him. A broad brush suggestion that a particular policy was discriminatory was not sufficient for purposes of litigation. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not in the bisuness of reviewing policies within the Organization, except where an Applicant clearly demonstrated that a specific decision had been made, which was adverse to his or her interests, in furtherance of that policy.; In light of the above, the Tribunal concluded...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on account of her being a former staff...

It is not disputed by either party that the Applicant was not employed by the Organization during the one week period between the curtailment, requested by himself, of his employment with ±¬ÁÏÍøECA and his appointment at ±¬ÁÏÍøHQ. Furthermore, the Applicant ¡°does not seek to challenge the 2005 decision creating the break in service, but, [in light of the Tribunal¡¯s decision in Gomez], the later decision not to consider him eligible for conversion to permanent appointment on the basis of that earlier decision¡±. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was ineligible for consideration for conversion to...

The Tribunal considered that an employer does not have an unqualified right to refuse to accept a resignation and rejected the Applicant¡¯s submissions on receivability. The receivability of any application before the Tribunal is subject to the statutory requirement of article 8.1(c) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, which is categorical that where required, an Applicant must submit a request for management evaluation of a contested decision.

The Respondent contended that the allegations of sexual harassment had been established after a proper investigation, that the disciplinary measures were appropriate and proportionate and that the Applicant had agreed to the imposition of these disciplinary measures. The Tribunal found that: (1) The OHRM had mischaracterized the Applicant¡¯s offence as ¡°sexual harassment¡± rather than ¡°harassment¡± and failed to follow its own procedures in ¡°the Guidelines on consideration for conversion to permanent appointment of staff members of the Secretariat eligible to be considered¡±; (2) There was a...