The Applicant alleged that the selection exercise was procedurally flawed and biased against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the candidates¡¯ answers on the written tests were marked by an assessor who did not know the identities of the candidates. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant was not prejudiced by the manner in which the test was carried out. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Applicant¡¯s claims unsubstantiated and dismissed the application.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the post in question was a New York-based post to be assigned to the Entebbe office ¡°subject to finalisation of arrangements for the initiation of a Regional Procurement Office¡±. This post was filled through a selection exercise that was finalized when the offer of appointment was made to Mr. YK in April 2011. The movement of the selected staff member, along with his post, to Entebbe was not a lateral move or a new recruitment, but rather implementation of the selected staff member¡¯s terms of appointment in line with the vacancy announcement that provided that recruitment...
The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...
MEU¡¯s decision was issued one month after the deadline for its issuance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant could not be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that this matter must properly be found to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT refused the Respondent¡¯s request to have the Application dismissed on grounds of receivability.
The Applicant was informed of the decision to not renew his contract, based on the ¡°serious weaknesses in his performance¡± on 27 October 2008. Consequently, any request for administrative review of the decision to not renew his contract should have been filed within 60 days from the notification of the contested decision.The Applicant, due to the very negative review and comments contained in his PER, was on notice of the potentially inaccurate information contained therein its receipt in August 2009. The 15 June 2010 transmittal of the OIA investigation report, while potentially providing the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration reconstituted the fact-finding panel in January 2013, following the filing of the application, which was therefore moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, even if the application were not moot, it would not be receivable as the Applicant did not comply with the requirement of first requesting management evaluation prior to filing her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the argument that the Applicant was not required to request management evaluation of the contested decision prior to filing her application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on account of her being a former staff...
The Applicant applied for a P-3 level temporary position advertised in October 2011. As part of the selection process, he was required to sit a written test. However, the Administration refused to accept his answers to the test on the basis that they were submitted after the specified deadline, which the Applicant disputed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant filed it more than eight months after the expiration of the applicable time limit for filing with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that the Applicant failed to provide an adequate basis to support a finding of...
The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal was receivable.
The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable because, in regard to the initiation of an investigation against the Applicant, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was time-barred and did not concern a contestable administrative decision. Furthermore, the Applicant had been granted appropriate interim relief in relation to the alleged denial of her request to be granted an appropriate transfer or paid administrative leave. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appeal against the decision to conduct an alleged ¡°secret and retaliatory¡± investigation was receivable, but dismissed the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred as the Applicant had failed to file it within 90 calendar days of receipt of the response to his request for management evaluation, as required by art. 8.1(d) of the Statute. The Applicant also failed to refer to any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delayed filing of his application and that would warrant a waiver or extension of the applicable time limits.
