Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

As a first preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its RoP did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in fact when it found that certain Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of irreparable damage and particular urgency. The application for suspension of action was rejected.

Prima facie unlawfulness Having reviewed the Applicant¡¯s performance evaluations, the Tribunal had doubts as to whether the Applicant¡¯s direct supervisors were indeed consulted before the lieutenants finalized and gave to the Applicant the performance evaluation forms on 9 June 2011. Absent an explanation from the Respondent on this particular point, these doubts had a direct impact on the lawfulness of the contested decision. If indeed the Administration did not follow its accepted and reasonable practice, the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment due to his poor performance...

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...

The Applicant¡¯s separations from service were the result of the expiration of his fixed-term appointments in the natural course of business. There were no legal provisions or administrative decision requiring that the Applicant take any breaks in service between his FTAs. The time period between his separation from service on one FTA and his re-employment on another FTA, which was not followed by any type of reinstatement, results in the Applicant¡¯s continuity of service being broken. Therefore, one of the cumulative conditions of ST/SGB/2009/10, to have five years of continuous service before...