±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that, as the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not request a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The contested decision impacted the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal situation vis-¨¤-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant¡¯s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent¡¯s explanation as to why the Applicant¡¯s post was the one chosen for abolition is well substantiated. There was a genuine large scale restructuring due to severe budget cuts, which resulted in other staff members being separated from service, including the Applicant, and there was a legitimate explanation for the recruitments and vacancies that were not cancelled. The presumption of regularity was satisfied. Since the Applicant cannot convincingly show why his post should not have been abolished even though the posts of dozens of other staff members...

The Tribunal observed that the Applicant¡¯s complaint involved one specific incident, i.e., a chain of emails where his performance was being criticized, which evolved into two managerial decisions by his supervisors: a transfer of functions and instauration of a PIP. The Applicant perceived those emails as harassment. However, for a staff member¡¯s behaviour to be punishable as constituting the disciplinary offence of harassment pursuant to ST/SGB/2019/8, the analysis of said behaviour must pass a two-fold test: it must be found ¡°improper and unwelcome¡± and ¡°might reasonably be expected or be...