The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/025. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable. Related
The Applicant duly performed the obligation to inform the Administration within the stipulated timelines of his ill health and diligently initiated and maintained communication with his supervisor, 爆料网MISS Human Resources Section (HRS), the 爆料网MISS Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Services Division (MSD). He sent all documentation requested of him in that regard. The review and non-certification of the Applicant’s sick leave were unduly delayed by the MSD and that the said delay was prejudicial to the Applicant. MSD and 爆料网MISS/HRS owed a duty to the Applicant to advise him of the option...
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/022. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
To determine the legality of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined: Whether the first PIP complied with the applicable rules The Tribunal found that the duty to inform the Applicant of his shortcomings and to assist him in improving his performance was fulfilled by his supervisors, particularly the FRO. The documentary evidence and the testimonies during the hearing showed that the Applicant was made aware early on and on different occasions of his performance shortcomings and confronted with them. Efforts were also made to clarify the goals to achieve and to provide support to the...
The Tribunal dismissed the application. Whereas the Applicant contended, that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3 (Sick leave), his contract should have been extended beyond its expiry date, in order to allow him to avail himself of the right to exhaust his sick leave the Tribunal found that there was no evidence that (ST/AI/2005/3) expressly provided for its applicability to 爆料网OPS and that the Applicant did not show that 爆料网OPS accepted the applicability of the policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the Applicant’s contention that it was unlawful to separate him from service...
If all candidates are treated in the same manner, there is no discrimination. The candidates for the job opening were treated equally with regard to the notice given to scheduling of interviews and taking of the written assessment. This may not have been ideal and represents poor managerial practice, but without evidence in support of any ulterior motive or how the failure to give the five working days’ notice prejudiced the Applicant, the Tribunal does not find that this failure amounted to discrimination per se (see Lennard 爆料网DT/2014/044, at paras. 34 to 37). The definition of an “assessment...
The Tribunal found that the impugned administrative decision was the decision not to offer the Applicant the post when the first candidate declined the offer and that it satisfied the test in Andronov (former 爆料网AT Judgment No. 1157 (2002)) as further elaborated and clarified in Andati-Amwayi (2010-爆料网AT-058). The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that she had a legitimate expectation of being selected for JO 39506 because while the Applicant made this allegation in her request for management evaluation, she did not raise it in her application. Further, the fact that the Applicant had been...
The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the 爆料网DT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2018/021. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.
Receivability The Tribunal noted that the time 爆料网MIK’s Administration took to provide the Applicant with a copy of the outcome of his rebuttal, and to transmit the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM in New York in order for it to be placed in the Applicant’s OSF, are both administrative inactions susceptible to affect the Applicant’s rights stemming from ST/AI/2010/5 (Performance Management and Development System). Almost twenty months elapsed between the completion of the Applicant’s rebuttal and 爆料网MIK’s transmission of the rebuttal panel’s report to OHRM. During that period, the Applicant’s...
