±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍø Dispute Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Applicant¡¯s dispute with ICAO.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that supplying additional circumstances as reasons for not rehiring the Applicant in 2018 did not revive the contested decision of 2016. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the contested decision within the required deadlines. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was no evidence that the Applicant and the Administration were in any way involved in an Ombudsman-driven negotiation process which may have implicitly extended the management evaluation deadline. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that although the Applicant claims to have been blocked from rehiring, he did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant had all the information necessary to seek management evaluation of the contested decisions and that the time limit for seeking management evaluation started running on 31 March 2018, which meant that the 60-day deadline for submitting a management evaluation request was 30 May 2018. The Applicant sought management evaluation of the decisions only on 29 June 2018, 29 days out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant¡¯s claim that she was unable to ¡°deal with the issue until she was released from the medical facility¡± on 28 May 2018 was unsupported...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the requirements of ST/AI/2003/3 were not satisfied since the Applicant was not serving on a higher-level post or regularly performing functions at the P-5 level. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the Applicant was serving on a post that was budgeted and classified at the P-4 level. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further noted that there is no P-5 post within the Conference Management and Translation Unit. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT accordingly held that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Special Post Allowance. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed all claims.

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the ±¬ÁÏÍøON Security and Safety Service (±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the ±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the decision to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment with effect from 11 September 2015 until 29 February 2016 was irreceivable because the Applicant failed to submit a request for management evaluation of the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that his appointment had been converted into a continuing one. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the procedural irregularity in issuing the retroactive fixed-term appointments could cause vexation but did not amount to a serious violation of rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the delays did not entail an ex lege conversion to a continuing...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS or any other entity of the ±¬ÁÏÍø, had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the termination decision. Noting that the Applicant did not request management evaluation for either of the contested decisions, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it could not consider the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable.