±¬ÁÏÍø

Administrative decision: The essential element of an appeal is that there is a contested and appealable ¡°administrative decision¡±. ¡°Conduct¡± is not an administrative decision subject to appeal pursuant to article 8.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Preparatory decision: Preparatory decisions do not affect the scope or extent of an applicant¡¯s rights and are therefore not subject to appeal. Management evaluation: A request for management evaluation is a necessary step in the appeal process. While the findings of a management evaluation do not form an independent administrative decision subject to...

Waiver of management evaluation deadline: The Tribunal held that the Respondent effectively waived the deadline for management evaluation and gave the Applicant the discretionary authority to decide when to litigate her matter by engaging her on the merits of her claims, even though her request for management evaluation was approximately 6 weeks late, and by suspending her request for management evaluation ¡°until further notice¡± with an undertaking that she could request for resumption of the formal process ¡°at any stage in the future¡±, should the issue not be resolved to her satisfaction.

±¬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...

Management Evaluation - It was held that the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the Tribunal operate on different deadlines and receivability thresholds and that the Tribunal cannot be bound by the findings of the MEU regarding the receivability of a case. Receivability - The Tribunal found that in this case, the entire 26 month period during which the Applicant was estranged from the Organization formed part of the same continuum punctuated by different contradicting decisions all of which centered on the singular issue of abuse of authority. Given the continuous nature of the Applicant¡¯s...

The Tribunal did not find any exceptional circumstances, and found that the application was not receivable, ratione temporis.

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Applicant was considered for one of the VA under review as a roster candidate, but not selected. The Applicant subsequently applied to another of the VA under review, but that VA was cancelled. The P-5 post opened under that VA was subsequently re-advertised, one day after the Applicant¡¯s status as a roster candidate had expired. The new VA was accessible to the public only for one day and the Administration selected a roster candidate, who had been the only candidate who had applied during the one-day opening of the VA. The Applicant did not have a chance to apply for the re-advertised...

MEU¡¯s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT refused the Respondent¡¯s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.

Abuse of Process: Proceedings before the Tribunal are not the proper forum to advocate legal reform. Where the Tribunal determines that any applications before it are frivolous, vexatious and/or an abuse of the Court¡¯s process, it will not hesitate to visit sanctions upon the offending party as provided for in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Vexatious Proceedings: An action may be held to be vexatious if it is obviously unsustainable, or frivolous, improper or instituted without sufficient ground to serve solely as an annoyance to the Respondent.