Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/004 (judgment on receivability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/128 (judgment on the merits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to upset the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the parties sought the mediation of their dispute and were within the deadlines for filing an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the Applicant¡¯s application was receivable by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Noting that the Applicant commenced employment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF less than three months after her separation and with no reduction in level or step from her previous role, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the present application was time-barred as it was not filed within 90 days from the date of receipt by the Applicant of the management evaluation. The Applicant submitted that the filing of the present application was delayed due to exceptional circumstances, namely his attempts to resolve the matter informally, including with the assistance of OSLA. The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than four months after the expiration of the relevant time period. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant¡¯s informal discussions with the...

The recovery was made on the basis that the Applicant did not complete the expected period of three months of service in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOCI upon return from his home leave. The Respondent submitted that the application was not receivable as the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were not filed within the filing deadlines. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant having been found in Egglesfield Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/208 to be in continuous service, his employment remained continuous beyond three months after his return from home leave and any recovered lump sum for home leave should...

There being no evidence that real ongoing informal resolution efforts took place between the date on which the Applicant was notified of the decision on 26 May 2011 and when he filed his request for management evaluation on 4 August 2011, the time limit was not extended and his request for management evaluation was not receivable (time barred). The Tribunal concludes that there was no genuine informal resolution efforts conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and there was no request for extension of time addressed to the Secretary-General by the Applicant. The 4 August 2011 request for...

rocedurally flawed because the ASG/OCSS failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the HCC Note and to comment on any perceived concerns regarding his performance. It was also unclear from the written decisions what specific conclusions the ASG/OCSS had reached about the Applicant¡¯s responsibility for the issues raised in the HCC Note. In addition, the Tribunal was not convinced that the contested decisions would have been justified notwithstanding the breaches of due process and procedure.