±¬ÁÏÍø

In light of the Respondent¡¯s acceptance of the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Ethics Office that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor had engaged in retaliatory acts against the Applicant, the Tribunal did not examine or make any findings on the issue of liability for retaliation. The Tribunal¡¯s review was limited to the issue of compensation. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the cancellation of her e-PAS and the failure to promptly issue another one negatively affected her ability to find other employment within the service of the Organization. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not shown...

The Tribunal observed that the Organization had decided not to renew the Applicant¡¯s appointment following his being declared persona non grata in Sudan. In practical terms, this could have necessitated redeployment of post, reassignment, administrative leave or, ultimately, non-extension of the appointment. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s claim to remain in office in the country where he was unwelcome was, in any event, unfounded. The Tribunal, further found that the Organization had fulfilled its legal obligations towards the Applicant and the impugned decision was lawful. Consequently, the...

The Tribunal considered that despite the Applicant¡¯s characterization of the contested decision as a ¡°written reprimand¡± in his request for management evaluation and in his application, there was never a reprimand issued by an authorized official and, thus, there was no administrative decision to contest. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal also noted that since the record related to the investigation of a complaint made against the Applicant was deleted from the Misconduct Tracking System (¡°MTS¡±), the Applicant¡¯s claim in this...

Nowhere in the Policy is using interviews or written test to appraise the competencies and/or qualifications of job candidates prohibited or even as much as discouraged. Rather, interviews are mandatory when ¡°the appointment of an external candidate is being considered¡± as it is stated that in such circumstances ¡°the applicants (external and internal) selected by the manager will be interviewed¡± (emphasis added). It is further stated that a ¡°[w]ritten test may be required¡± (see sec. 71). No matter what the Applicant¡¯s status was at the time of the selection process, the fact that the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR...

For the purpose of determining eligibility for a SPA, the Applicant performed higher level functions from the date of the issuance of a vacancy announcement for the higher-level post until the selected candidate assumed the higher-level post. As he performed the higher-level functions for less than four months, the Applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under ST/AI/2003/3. The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for SPA and that the Administration¡¯s decision not to pay it was lawful.

The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2019/019 in its reconsideration of the Applicant¡¯s claim. The ABCC received and considered a medical opinion of the medical doctor of MSD, who reviewed medical reports submitted by the Applicant along with his prior medical history. While the Applicant made allegations of improper considerations, he did not provide any supporting evidence and these allegations are without merit.

The Applicant did not raise the refusal to grant an exception to an eligibility criterion for the Applicant to be considered for a continuing appointment in his request for management evaluation, therefore, the application was not receivable. Even if the Tribunal considered that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to grant him a continuing appointment in the present application, the application was not receivable as time-barred. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the statutory time limit for requesting a management evaluation is within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for want of a valid statutory basis. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not seeking a revision of the Judgment per se rather he was asking for an order or a mechanism of enforcing the administrative decision that had rendered his initial application moot.

The Applicant was required to request management evaluation of the contested decision (imposition of a written reprimand), which he failed to do and hence the application was not receivable.

As part of a closing statement, the Applicant submitted new written evidence. The Tribunal rejected all new evidence as this evidence could have been submitted before the closing of the proceedings and no exceptional circumstances justified the late submission. The Applicant was not fully informed of all the evidence upon which the Administration would rely to impose the disciplinary sanction. However, he was nevertheless informed of the allegations against him and therefore the Tribunal proceeded to a de novo review of the facts and a judicial review of the remaining aspects of the case. It...