±¬ÁÏÍø

30 v. 60-day mark candidates: It is clear from the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3¡ªin particular sections 4.5, 7.1 and 9.2, as well as paragraph 3 of annex I and paragraph 4 of annex III¡ªthat applications of candidates eligible to be considered at the 30-day mark must be considered before those of candidates eligible to be considered at the 60-day mark. 60-day mark candidates may only be considered if there are no qualified 30-day mark candidates. Compensation: In setting the appropriate amount of compensation, the Tribunal must assess the chance that the Applicant would have been promoted had the...

Receivability of claim for relief: In his application before the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal, the Applicant merely requested compensation for the prejudice suffered. His request that the contested decision be rescinded, which was submitted two years later, must be rejected as time-barred since it was submitted long after the time limit for appeal had expired. 30 v. 60-day mark candidates: Section 6.2 of ST/AI/2002/4 prescribes that applications from 30-day mark candidates received after the 30-day mark shall be considered at the 60-day mark. Furthermore, it is clear from the provisions...

The Applicant¡¯s criticism, that staff members with a vested interest in the process because they were unsuccessful in the promotion exercise procured the Staff Union resolution, is not a criticism that should be directed towards the Respondent¡¯s managers, but is rather a matter for the Staff Union. Staff member¡¯s right to a decision in a timely manner: The Respondent¡¯s approach to resolving this matter indicated a lack of urgency and sensitivity towards the legitimate expectations and feelings of the Applicant. Outcome: The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded compensation of USD10,000 for emotional distress and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT drew an adverse inference from the Respondent¡¯s failure to disclose the reasons to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and declared that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and therefore unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the Administration breached its obligation to disclose the reasons for the contested decision to the Applicant. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered (i) compensation in the amount equivalent to six months¡¯ net base salary and entitlements at the P-5 grade, VI step, with retroactive interest, for actual economic loss suffered, and (ii) USD8,000 as compensation for emotional distress. Applicable...

The Tribunal considers that the Administration did not err in finding that her claims had been adequately addressed and that she had not suffered harassment. However, it failed in its duty to ensure a work environment that protects the physical and psychological integrity of staff. It awards the Applicant two months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage plus half a month for excessive delay in the appeal process. Duty to take prompt action to deal with harassment claims: At the material time, the Administration was bound by a duty to take prompt action and address harassment claims. In the instant...

The Tribunal found this decision unlawful as not grounded on any valid legal basis. It awarded three months¡¯ net base salary for moral damage.

For the Applicant to claim pecuniary damages arising from his being transferred, or the reprimand being withdrawn whilst he was subjected to the JDC process, he must establish that he suffered actual economic harm. The Applicant could, for instance, have done so by identifying a specific promotion which he missed out on. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has provided limited evidence of his exclusion from consideration for other posts. The Tribunal finds that being investigated for misconduct and having been issued with an administrative reprimand is more than likely to have negatively...

Decision affecting the applicant¡¯s rights: Since staff members have the right to apply to other positions under the Staff Regulations and Rules, they are entitled to contest a non-selection decision and a fortiori a decision imposing an additional condition for appointment after having been selected. Such a decision does affect the staff member¡¯s rights and is thus open to appeal.Lack of legal basis for the condition to renounce to permanent resident status: The General Assembly never endorsed the recommendations to approve the establishment of the condition that staff members must relinquish...

The Tribunal found that the PCO¡¯s role was vitiated by bias towards the Applicant, the evaluation of the Applicant was not objective, the selection exercise was unlawful and the Organization failed to discharge the burden of presumption of regularity. Naming of names: The Statute does not define ¡°personal data¡±, but for the purposes of judgments, it is unlikely to include names. Applicants are routinely named by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the headings of published cases except in circumstances where anonymity is granted by the Tribunal. Bias: In the legal sense, may be actual or apparent but either...

Non-promotion: As regards promotions and considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed in sink with the procedural and legal framework of the 2009 ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR annual promotions session, its methodology and to examine whether an irregularity vitiated a significant chance for promotion. The Applicant was not promoted due to a shifting of his candidature from one group to another, based on criteria which were not stipulated in the rules and at a stage in the course of the process of examination, which was in breach...