±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found that the application, insofar as it contests the SPA decision and the Reclassification decision, is not receivable. The Applicant submitted his SPA claim three years too late, therefore, his claim is timebarred. As the Applicant never requested reclassification, there is no final administrative decision regarding reclassification. Without a final administrative decision regarding classification, the Dispute Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Reclassification decision. The Tribunal found that the ToRs decision was lawful on the basis that the Administration...

The Applicant is no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which must therefore be deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°[i]n order for a staff member¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s motivations for accepting his appointment to the P-3 post have no bearing on the lawfulness of the decision. The Applicant was cautioned in advance of his right to apply for other vacant posts, and he voluntarily decided to apply for a lower-level post. The Applicant, upon selection for the P-3 level post, was cautioned that he would be appointed at the P-3 level regardless of the grade of the post he encumbered at the time. This course of action was open to the Organization under ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA¡¯s staffing policy. The Applicant then proceeded to accept this...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. When she...

The Tribunal ruled that the assertion that the Applicant was entitled to automatic appointment since he had a continuous appointment and was on the roster for Senior Transport Officer, P-5 was without basis. The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the obligation under staff rule 9.6(e) is only triggered where there has been a decision to terminate a staff member¡¯s appointment due to the abolition of a post or the reduction of staff. The Tribunal found that the provisions of staff rule 9.6(e) were not applicable to the circumstances of this case and could therefore not be complied with...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was wrongly evaluated against unpublished criteria, discretionary authority to cancel the RFR job opening was misused and abused and the Applicant was not afforded a fair chance at adequate and impartial consideration, the Tribunal finds that the applicable Regulations and Rules were not applied in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. The Applicant met and exceeded the requirements for the JO but the RFR was improperly cancelled. The Tribunal found that the presumption of regularity of the hiring manager¡¯s actions has been rebutted and that...

The Tribunal concludes that the contested decision, lawful or not, does not result from a disciplinary process and is therefore not exempted from management evaluation. Accordingly, in application of staff rule 11.2, the Applicant ought to have requested management evaluation before filing his appeal before this Tribunal. Having failed to do so, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not offered any statement, or evidence, which would contradict the fundamental findings of the disciplinary process regarding the objective element of the impugned conduct, that is, that he made requests largely based upon incorrect information. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Respondent had substantiated with clear and convincing evidence the factual basis of the contested the decision. The Tribunal also established that the Applicant acted in violation of staff regulations 1.2(b) and 1.2(q), and staff rule 1.7 and hence his actions amounted to...