Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Since there was no formal notification of the results of the selection process to the Applicant, the internal circular suffices as the notice for purposes of lodging the challenge against the process. Time started running on the date that the Applicant read the internal circular that the position had been filled, conversely that he had not been successful. The Applicant complied with staff rule 11.2(c) by timely requesting management evaluation of his case. The Applicant¡¯s refusal to participate in the interview was not voluntary. The Applicant¡¯s grievances about the selection process were not...

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiate, as the Applicant did not request management evaluation, as required. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application.

In making the final decision on the Applicants¡¯ complaint, the then Director General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOG, as the responsible official for their case, was bound by sec. 5.18 of ST/SGB/2008/5. Since the investigation report concluded that no prohibited conduct was established, the consequent decision to close the matter without any further action was nothing more than regular compliance with sec. 5.18(a) of ST/SGB/2008/5. In assessing the legality of the decision to take no further action, the Tribunal must examine whether the Administration breached its obligations pertaining to the review of the complaint...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been ¡°shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member¡± (see Michaud 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the...

The Applicant, as the aggrieved individual, was entitled to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken pursuant to sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5. Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 cannot be read as providing a mere right to be informed of the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken, but must be interpreted as providing a right to the aggrieved staff member that a disciplinary process be started unless exceptional circumstances arise. In the present case, the person to be disciplined was no longer a staff member, and the parties disagreed on whether the...

The Applicant¡¯s challenge against her first reporting officer¡¯s refusal to amend her ePAS was found to be an administrative decision because the contradictions between some of the ratings and comments in the e-PAS were of such gravity that the decision would have merited rescission under Handy (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/030 and 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1044). However, this claim failed for the lack of a timely management evaluation request. The Applicant¡¯s challenge against the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment was found receivable. The Applicant¡¯s performance evaluation for 2016-2017 had an adverse effect on her...