±¬ÁÏÍø

Le tribunal a conclu que la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir parce que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e a ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 21 mai 2020 et que le demandeur a demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la direction le 25 octobre 2020, sur la base d'une d¨¦cision ult¨¦rieure de Monusco dat¨¦e du 8 octobre 2020. Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ le 8 octobre que le 8 octobre 2020 Le courrier ¨¦lectronique n'a pas r¨¦initialis¨¦ le d¨¦lai de demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion car il s'agissait d'une r¨¦it¨¦ration de la d¨¦cision du 21 mai 2020. Le tribunal a rappel¨¦ que le Tribunal d'appel a jug¨¦ que ?la r¨¦it¨¦ration d'une d¨¦cision administrative ne...

La demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir car le demandeur n'a pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion.

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ le dossier, le Tribunal a conclu que les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es avaient ¨¦t¨¦ suivies pendant l'exercice de s¨¦lection et que le demandeur avait re?u une contrepartie compl¨¨te et ¨¦quitable pour le TJO # 136259. Le dossier a montr¨¦ que le demandeur avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦s¨¦lectionn¨¦ et invit¨¦ pour l'entretien et a ensuite ¨¦t¨¦ recommand¨¦ par Le responsable du recrutement au chef de mission pour la s¨¦lection. Cependant, le gestionnaire d'embauche a propos¨¦ un autre candidat ¨¤ la s¨¦lection en tant que candidat le plus appropri¨¦, car un autre candidat avait re?u une note plus ¨¦lev¨¦e pour les...

Le tribunal a rappel¨¦ qu'un ancien membre du personnel n'avait acc¨¨s au tribunal des diff¨¦rends qu'en ce qui concerne une d¨¦cision administrative affectant les termes de son ancienne nomination ou contrat. En l'esp¨¨ce, le Tribunal a conclu que la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione Personae car ¨¤ la date du d¨¦p?t de la demande, le demandeur n'¨¦tait pas membre du personnel et la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'a pas influenc¨¦ les termes de son ancienne nomination ou contrat d'emploi.

Le non-renouvellement de la nomination ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e du demandeur en raison de l¡¯absence de financement, la raison propos¨¦e du non-renouvellement est ¨¦tay¨¦e par des preuves. Le poste encombr¨¦ par le demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ financ¨¦ par les fonds re?us dans le cadre des accords de niveau de service, et le salaire du demandeur en 2016-2019 a ¨¦t¨¦ enti¨¨rement couvert par un accord de niveau de service sp¨¦cifique, dont les contributions ont ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦duites dans la mesure o¨´ elles ¨¦taient insuffisantes pour couvrir le salaire du demandeur . Le demandeur a demand¨¦ pourquoi les autres membres du personnel n...

1. En ce qui concerne les deux premi¨¨res r¨¦clamations du demandeur, le tribunal a rappel¨¦ que la r¨¨gle 11.2 (a) du personnel exige que tout membre du personnel souhaite contester officiellement une d¨¦cision administrative de soumettre d'abord une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction de la d¨¦cision administrative all¨¦gu¨¦e d'¨ºtre non en non -Can avec ses conditions de nomination ou contrat d'emploi. Dans ce cas, le tribunal a jug¨¦ que le demandeur devait demander une ¨¦valuation de la gestion de ces deux d¨¦cisions, mais elle ne l'a pas fait. En cons¨¦quence, ses affirmations relatives aux...

En ce qui concerne les deux premi¨¨res r¨¦clamations du demandeur, le tribunal a rappel¨¦ que la r¨¨gle 11.2 (a) du personnel exige tout membre du personnel qui souhaite contester officiellement une d¨¦cision administrative de soumettre d'abord une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction de la d¨¦cision administrative all¨¦gu¨¦e d'¨ºtre en non-conformit¨¦ avec ses conditions de nomination ou contrat d'emploi. Dans ce cas, le tribunal a jug¨¦ que le demandeur devait demander une ¨¦valuation de la gestion de ces deux d¨¦cisions, mais elle ne l'a pas fait. En cons¨¦quence, ses affirmations relatives aux d¨¦cisions...

1. In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that Staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae...

In relation to the Applicant¡¯s first two claims, the Tribunal recalled that staff rule 11.2(a) requires any staff member who wishes to formally contest an administrative decision to first submit a request for management evaluation of the administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with his or her terms of appointment or contract of employment. In this case, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of those two decisions, but she did not do so. Accordingly, her claims relating to decisions one and two were not receivable ratione materiae. On...

On the issue of reassignment, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was reassigned to a position at the same grade and level commensurate with her skills and competencies. By Inter-Office-Memorandum dated 18 August 2020, the Under-Secretary-General for Operational Support (¡°USG/DOS¡±) reassigned the Applicant to another P-5 position, allowing her to maintain her grade, level and contract status. The Tribunal thus concluded that the Applicant had not met her burden to show that the contested decision was ill-motivated or in bad faith. Mere assertions and innuendo were insufficient. On the...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...

The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant¡¯s complaint was reviewed in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Applicant did not present a prima facie case of harassment as the claims were unsubstantiated and she did not provide adequate proof to support them. The facts did not amount to misconduct or prohibited conduct. The conduct the Applicant alleged even if true, was not harassment within the meaning of ST/SGB/2008/5. Consequently, the Administration had a legitimate basis not to proceed with an investigation into these matters. The Applicant did not proffer any evidence to...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that ¡°the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.

The Tribunal recalled that a former staff member has access to the Dispute Tribunal only in respect of an administrative decision affecting the terms of his or her former appointment or contract. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of filing the application, the Applicant was not a staff member and the contested decision did not breach the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Having reviewed the record, the Tribunal concluded that proper procedures were followed during the selection exercise and that the Applicant received full and fair consideration for the TJO# 136259. The record showed that the Applicant was shortlisted and invited for the interview and was subsequently recommended by the hiring manager to the Head of Mission for selection. However, the hiring manager proposed another candidate for selection as the most suitable candidate because that other candidate had received a higher rating for the competencies of Planning and Organizing and Client...

Non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment due to the lack of funding The proffered reason for the non-renewal is supported by evidence. The post encumbered by the Applicant was funded by funds received under service level agreements, and the Applicant¡¯s salary in 2016-19 were fully covered by a specific service level agreement, whose contributions were reduced to the extent that they were insufficient to cover the Applicant¡¯s salary. The Applicant questioned why other staff members were not affected by the reduction of funding, but none of the other staff members¡¯ salary was fully...

By not seeking the Medical Director¡¯s feedback in a timely manner, the Registrar failed to take into consideration relevant matters before making the contested decision. The decision-making process was vitiated by a defect that rendered the contested decision irrational. The delay in the handling the Applicant¡¯s complaint was unjustified. The Administration lawfully acted within its discretion in fulfilling its obligations under sec. 6.4 of ST/SGB/2008/5. The contested decision is rescinded and remanded to the IRMCT. The IRMCT shall review, in consultation with DHMOSH, whether additional...

Even if the investigation had been completed and it has been decided not to inform the Applicant of its outcome, such decision would still need to be submitted for management evaluation. No matter what the situation is¡ªif a decision has been made on providing the Applicant information on the OIOS investigation or not¡ªthe application is not receivable.

The rejection of creating a ¡°separate case¡± for the Applicant¡¯s motion for interim relief in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NY/2016/028 was done pursuant to the instructions of Judge Greceanu. The contested decision was therefore made by Judge Greceanu and not the Registrar, whose role was merely to communicate this decision to the Applicant. Since the facts were clear from the application, a summary judgment on receivability could be issued under art. 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae.